PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill  (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
	 To be read the Third time on Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Higher Education (Internationalisation)

Laura Moffatt: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on the globalisation of higher education.

John Denham: I regularly speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Our higher education sector plays an important role in international development. Our universities attract students from more than 200 countries, helping them to acquire skills and knowledge that are of benefit to their home countries. Universities collaborate extensively with their counterparts overseas to deliver courses, to exchange staff and students, and to conduct world-class research. My Department's bilateral programmes with India, China and African countries complement DFID's work.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response. In Crawley we are working hard to acquire a university campus. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while universities benefit students at home, enabling students overseas to learn together and share experiences is a very good way of promoting education in the United Kingdom?

John Denham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am well aware of her ambition to establish a university campus in Crawley. It is true that the internationalisation of higher education brings numerous benefits to our own students and also to students who come here to study, and who take their knowledge of education back to their countries along with, hopefully, a good impression of our country and our education system.

Nigel Evans: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the work of the dedicated staff of the British Council who operate in a number of developing countries throughout the world, not only advertising our universities but helping to establish campuses in those countries? Will he also take the opportunity to praise the work of British Chevening Scholarships, a body that provides scholarships for people who might not otherwise be able to afford education in this country?

John Denham: I am delighted to do so. I have met Chevening scholars in Bournemouth in the recent past. In my present post I have worked with the British Council in China, and have observed its role in helping British universities to offer British higher education in that country. In an earlier role I met British Council staff in Pakistan, where they were doing much to promote awareness of further and higher education in this country and to deliver English language courses in that country.

Small Businesses

Robert Flello: What steps the Government are taking to assist the development of leadership and management skills in small businesses.

John Denham: We have increased our commitment to our leadership and management programme through Train to Gain from £4 million this year to £30 million per year from next year. We aim to develop the capacity of small business managers to understand the skills needs of their businesses, and to use the publicly funded Train to Gain programme. We expect around 42,000 companies with between 10 and 250 employees and some 60,000 individual managers to participate in the leadership programme over the next three years, and we expect that to result in about 150,000 learners from those companies using Train to Gain.

Robert Flello: There are many small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency and, indeed, in the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. Although I would love to mention them all, I suspect that that would both be unfair to those that I missed out and would incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker.
	Will my right hon. Friend outline the practical steps that could enable the measures he has described to help small businesses and starter businesses, not just in my constituency but in the wider Potteries area?

John Denham: I hope that a number of steps can be taken to promote the scheme, in addition, of course, to the steps that my hon. Friend himself might take. We hope that small and medium-sized enterprises will be approached by skills brokers operating at regional level to promote awareness of the scheme. In fact, we know that that is already happening. It will also be possible for training providers to approach companies directly.
	The offer is a good one. Public investment in developing the skills and management experience of businesses will enable managers to understand how they can use Train to Gain funds to secure further public funding to raise the skill levels of their staff. This is a very good proposition for small businesses. It is tried and tested, we have expanded it dramatically, and I hope that all Members will help to promote it in their areas.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend will know of the considerable growth in small businesses in my constituency, but there are crucial problems. People lack confidence in their ability to develop small firms, and in particular to cope with the volume of regulation. How can we devise courses that will teach them that they have the talent to deliver, and also that they are able to cope with all that regulation?

John Denham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is actively dealing with the issue of regulation and the environment for small businesses by means of deregulation and other mechanisms, and that is an important part of the picture. My Department, meanwhile, has recognised that for business managers, understanding the skills needs of their businesses and the way in which investing in skills can improve productivity and profit is not simple or straightforward. We believe that, by investing public money in improving that understanding and those skills, we can help managers to run their businesses while also enabling them to unlock further public investment in their staff.

Skills Pledge

Linda Riordan: How many employees have participated in the skills pledge scheme to date.

David Lammy: By December 2007, more than 950 companies covering almost 2.7 million employees had made a skills pledge to develop the skills of their employees, including basic skills such as literacy and numeracy and work towards relevant valuable qualifications to at least NVQ level 2, which is equivalent to five good GCSEs.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for that reply. In Halifax, thousands of my constituents work in small and medium-sized businesses, which are vital to the economy. Can the Minister tell me how many people in Halifax have participated in the scheme, and what skills and benefits they have developed through that?

David Lammy: Thirty-nine organisations in the Yorkshire and Humber region have participated in the skills pledge, but my hon. Friend will be aware that large companies such as Sainsbury's, Tesco and Royal Mail have also signed up to the pledge. The most essential programme in her constituency, as in others, is Train to Gain, with its more than £1 billion of investment over this comprehensive spending review period. That engagement of employers with a broker and local colleges in skilling up their work forces is what will produce results in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that, although it is fine for larger and leading organisations to commit to the skills pledge, it is equally important and yet a great deal more difficult to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to participate actively? Will he ensure that the minimum of bureaucracy is required, and does he acknowledge that the maximum of encouragement is expected from Government to ensure their participation, both in apprenticeships and other structured training programmes?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The first thing to say is that this endeavour cannot be just a national one; it has to be a local one, and there is certainly a role for local chambers of commerce across the country to pursue skills agendas in their areas. Secondly, we have ensured through the Train to Gain programme that the absolute priority is hard-to-reach companies, and that includes companies that have not invested in skills in the previous period. Through that, and our plan for growth where we recognised and introduced changes to make this as simple as possible, we can ensure that small companies are able to access the relevant money to upskill their work force.

Denis Murphy: As someone who went through a craft apprenticeship training scheme where education and training were available up to and including degree level, I am aware that this is very costly for smaller employers. Has my hon. Friend any plans to extend finance to SMEs in particular?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises a good point, and he will be pleased to know that in our recently published apprenticeship review we discussed piloting direct payments to ensure that small businesses are able to engage in the apprenticeship programme.

University Applications

Rosie Cooper: What discussions he has had with representatives of universities on encouraging applications from students from all backgrounds.

Bill Rammell: This Government remain fully committed to increasing and widening participation in higher education. To remain competitive, our economy needs more graduates, and it is right that those benefiting from higher education should come from all walks of life. I have had many discussions on this important matter, which in essence is about ensuring that talent does not go to waste and our nation does not lose out as a result.

Rosie Cooper: Is the Minister aware that parts of West Lancashire are among the most deprived in the country? Public transport links are not good throughout the constituency and are particularly poor from places such as Skelmersdale. That disadvantages young people who want to attend either the university within the constituency or those on our borders. Given that the odds can be stacked against young people from low-income families, does the Minister not agree that we must provide as much support as possible to improve young people's access to higher education and the career opportunities that that will give them in later life?

Bill Rammell: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on the work that she does on this issue. I believe that we should provide as much support as possible for the potential students in her constituency to whom she refers. That is why we brought back non-repayable grants and why, from this September, we are significantly expanding the proportion of students who will be eligible for such grants. Even with the mechanisms already in place, I hope that she would join me in welcoming the fact that in her constituency entry to part-time and full-time undergraduate courses has increased by 40 per cent. in the past 10 years.

James Gray: We are all glad about the Government's commitment to higher education for all. Will the Minister pay particular attention to one group of people—the sons and daughters of Gurkha soldiers? Last year, Gurkha soldiers were given equal status to British soldiers in every respect—pay and conditions, home leave and so forth—save for the fact that their children are not yet given home-student status. I understand that the Department is working on this matter with the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister commit himself to giving home-student status to Gurkha soldiers' children, and will he tell us how the negotiations with the Ministry of Defence are progressing?

Bill Rammell: I am highly aware of this issue. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not make a cast-iron commitment on the Floor of the House today, but I have discussed the matter in detail with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. We are examining the issue and I hope that we will be able to say something about it shortly.

Brian Iddon: My hon. Friend will know that the university of Bolton has a fine record of attracting people from all walks of life. However, he also knows that there is a high drop-out rate across the country—the university of Bolton is included in that. What more can we do to help to retain students who are attracted to universities and help them to stay in the courses that they have opted to study?

Bill Rammell: This is extremely important, although it is necessary to put it into context. We have some of the lowest drop-out rates in the advanced world. The recent Public Accounts Committee report included two tables. If we look at the one that includes both those students who transfer to another university and those who achieve a different higher education qualification, we get a more realistic picture. It shows that non-completion rates have reduced consistently since 1998.

Evan Harris: The Higher Education Minister must accept that the proportion of students from poorer backgrounds accepted to universities has not increased as he would have wanted. Does he accept that debt aversion is a problem? Whether or not he accepts that, does he agree that there is a need for proper research into the reasons why there are not more applications from students from poorer backgrounds? Will he commission that proper research so that we can have evidence-based policy?

Bill Rammell: We have discussed this in the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills, and we regularly conduct research into these issues. There has been an increase in the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups applying to and being accepted by universities. I want that to be higher, which is why we have a host of policies in train to achieve that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in celebrating last week's figures on applications to study at university next year. They show a significant overall increase of more than 7 per cent. and an increase in the proportion of applications from lower socio-economic groups.

Jeff Ennis: Is the Minister aware that both Oxford and Cambridge still take one third of their students from 100 so-called elite schools—80 per cent. in the private school sector and just 20 per cent. in the state school sector? Both those universities are failing to meet their abysmally low widening participation rate targets of 9 per cent. What more can he do to drag those two universities kicking and screaming into the 21st century by widening their participation rates?

Bill Rammell: I understand the genuine concern on the issue. It is acknowledged by the vice-chancellors and senior management teams at both institutions. Those institutions have made progress in broadening their access, but, as with all institutions, there is much more to do. One of the most effective ways of achieving that progress is by having much stronger school-university partnerships, involving institutions across the country, including Oxford and Cambridge.

Ian Taylor: Members of Universities UK are well aware of the need to broaden access to universities and they are making every effort, but does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to encourage all people from all backgrounds to go to university is to teach the proper subjects in schools to give children a chance to do so? The number of 18-year-olds with a decent A-level is some 25 per cent., so the target of 50 per cent. is heroic. Why are more students not taught the individual sciences of maths, physics, biology and chemistry, rather than a general science that eliminates them from our best universities?

Bill Rammell: I know from many discussions with the hon. Gentleman and from his background that he takes these issues very seriously. One key change being made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to ensure that triple science is more widely available from the coming academic year. That will help with the issues that he raises. We have made progress, but we need to do more.

Ann Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in towns such as Keighley a growing number of young women from the Asian community are doing really well at A-level and going on to university every year? I am so proud of that and I hope that it will continue. However, is he also aware that once they get to university they are often bullied by young men about their style of dress and their general conduct? Can he ask vice-chancellors to be protectors of those women, so that they can conduct their lives as they wish?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and I know that she has taken a particular interest from a constituency perspective. It is critical that all students from all backgrounds, faiths and nationalities come together on campus. The institution then has a responsibility not only to ensure that all students are protected, but that they are integrated within the student community.

Robert Wilson: We discovered last week that the Government are spending some £211,000 for every disadvantaged student they get into university. We now know that at least a fifth of those students are leaving within a year, despite the Government spending a further £800 million to tackle drop-out rates. We also know that student debt will shortly reach £21 billion. Can the Minister tell me which one of those financial failures gives the taxpayer best value for money?

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his claim that a fifth of students leave university within a year and I ask him to go back to the figures and look at what he is saying. The figures can be made to add up for the claim that £200,000 is spent for every widening-participation student, but only if the total money spent on widening access for all less well-off and disabled students is divided by the total number of additional full-time students from lower socio-economic groups. However, that excludes part-timers, mature students and those students from better-off backgrounds whom we nevertheless want to encourage to apply to all universities, especially the selective universities. The hon. Gentleman needs to address that point.
	As for so-called student debt, I understand that the Conservatives are still committed to a real rate of interest for repayments on student loans. We should have a comment from them on whether that is still the case, because it would do nothing to help students.

Mr. Speaker: We are not going to have that comment this morning.

Bill Olner: I know that my hon. Friend visited the very good North Warwickshire and Hinckley technical college in Nuneaton recently. When he has talks with the professors at universities, will he ask them to recognise fully the wonderful diplomas that will be rolled out in the tertiary sector? Very good work is being done, but if it does not create a route to university for some students, it will have failed.

Bill Rammell: I very much welcomed the opportunity to visit the college in my hon. Friend's constituency. I agree that the development of the specialised diplomas is one of the most significant educational changes that we have seen in a generation. For it to succeed, we need all universities to recognise them as an admission qualification for higher education. All the indications from universities are that that is happening, and I welcome that.

Stephen Williams: A young person whose parents have had degree-level education or who come from a professional background is more than four times more likely to access higher education than someone whose parents have a manual occupation and have not been educated to degree level. Given that, does the Minister not think that some of the widening-participation budget that is allocated for retention, which has already been mentioned, might actually be more appropriately spent by universities on targeted outreach work for individuals from schools that traditionally do not access higher education?

Bill Rammell: Our commitment to widening participation, as well as the investment that we have put into that area, is clear and strong. However, we need to keep under review the way in which that money is spent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to target those schools and communities where access is lowest to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that people fulfil their talents. That should include the provision of information, advice and guidance.

Adult Apprenticeships

Gordon Banks: What steps the Government are taking to increase the number of adult apprenticeships.

David Lammy: We recently announced that, for the first time, funding will be targeted specifically at expanding apprenticeships for adults aged over 25. That will mean 30,000 such apprenticeships costing £90 million over the next three years.

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House what can be done to support not only adult apprenticeships but all apprenticeships in Scotland in the same way as they are supported by the Government in England?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend will know that that is a devolved matter. I have been in discussion with my counterpart in Scotland and I know that they have not sought to make progress on modern apprenticeships in the way that we have most recently on this side of the border. It is a devolved matter and I know that it is the subject of great debate in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh: In a previous Question Time, the Secretary of State admitted that there was a 40 per cent. drop-out rate for apprenticeships. Does the Minister not agree that that is an extraordinarily high figure and does not justify the huge investment from the Government? What is his Department doing to tackle that unacceptable situation?

David Lammy: I think that I said to the hon. Lady that completion rates for apprenticeships were currently at 63 per cent. I ought to remind her that completion rates in 1997 were 25 per cent., that there was no inspection and that investment in further education colleges in resources for apprenticeships was nil. The Government recently published their apprenticeship review precisely in order to ensure that quality improves and that more young people are able to take up apprenticeships and complete them.

Judy Mallaber: In assessing how this welcome programme can involve women, will my hon. Friend look in particular at the recent Select Committee report "Jobs for the girls", which considered the impact of occupational job segregation on the worrying continuing gender pay gap and the waste of skills in the economy? Will he particularly look at the issues included on how to encourage women over 25 to have the confidence to go into non-traditional jobs, on how the drop-out rate is partly the result of low pay—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will have an answer.

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and for the way in which she continues to champion issues of equality in relation to apprenticeships, particularly for women. I hope that she will be pleased by the recent announcement on apprenticeships, as more money will improve prospects for women. I hope, too, that she will welcome the last chapter of the apprenticeship review, which deals with those equality issues. One thing that it highlights is the need for critical mass pilots to get a number of women in a cohort into a particular sector. In my early weeks in this post, I was pleased to visit Kier construction in Islington, where they were working with women and upskilling them in the construction industry. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that women feel more confident about coming into such sectors at an older age than they might have done when they were aged 16 to 18. That is why the pilots are so important.

Phil Willis: I am pleased that since 2003-04 we have seen the doubling of completion rates for apprenticeships at both level 2 and level 3, but will the Minister tell us what he will do, first, to make sure that retention and completion rates are higher and, secondly, to disincentivise employers who train people to a particular level but then drop the apprenticeship because the people are economically useful to the company, because that is one of the huge barriers to young people completing their apprenticeship?

David Lammy: On the issue of drop-out, we do everything we can to raise completion rates and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement in the House this morning, but it is important not to say that young people have "dropped out" of an apprenticeship—they have completed a part of their apprenticeship and often go on to other occupations and valuable work that is right for them. One of the things that we have been keen to do is to ensure that there are programme-led apprenticeships, perhaps for young people who are not ready for an apprenticeship. We are absolutely committed to ensuring the quality of apprenticeships, but such young people can work in college, based around the sector, in preparation for an apprenticeship. We believe that that is absolutely key to driving up standards and completion rates. It is also important to acknowledge that in the end this is employment, and the whole thrust of the review is to incentivise employers to recognise the contribution they need to make to their local community so that we are all investing in our young people.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend may be aware that BRUSH, a group of companies in my constituency, is for the first time taking on apprentices in the engineering sector that was decimated in the 1980s and is now re-growing. However, the group has reached the stage of having to put up billboards around the town to attract people to apply for those posts, as people feel, because of the state that engineering has been in for the past decade or so, that there is a problem with its future. What is my hon. Friend doing in his Department to ensure that we promote engineering and the fact that it has a bright future? BRUSH has full books and a healthy future in front of it, so we need to promote the benefits of engineering to young people, because it is the foundation of everything we do in the UK.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, which is why we have included in the apprenticeship review a requirement for schools to ensure that there is appropriate careers information about available apprenticeships. In relation to engineering, he will be pleased that SEMTA—the Science, Engineering, Manufacturing Technologies Alliance, the sector skills council—has identified careers information and work with schools as a clear priority in its sector skills agreement.

John Hayes: I do not want to be excessively brutal with the Minister—[Hon. Members: "Go on."] No, I know that he is desperately worried about being forced to repeat what he reluctantly acknowledged at the previous departmental question time, which is that the number of apprentices is falling at all levels. The Leitch report makes it clear that reskilling and upskilling adults who are already in the work force is vital to our economic future, so can the Minister tell us, ideally without more banter and bluff, why the number of adults not yet skilled to level 2, on all types of Learning and Skills Council-funded provision, including workplace training, has plummeted by 620,000—a staggering 42 per cent.—in the past two years?

David Lammy: It is becoming routine to have ding-dongs on this issue in the Chamber every few weeks. What the hon. Gentleman should concentrate on is the number of young people who have started an apprenticeship and the number who have completed one. The number of young people who started an apprenticeship this year is 180,000; the number who started an apprenticeship in 1997 was 65,000, so there has been tremendous progress. The number of young people who completed an apprenticeship this year was 103,000, and we have already discussed the poor completion rate when the hon. Gentleman was in power. Those are the figures. That is improvement and he should support the apprenticeship review to ensure that we take it even further forward.

IGCSEs and A-Levels

Christopher Chope: When he last met university vice-chancellors to discuss the value of IGCSE and A-level qualifications.

Bill Rammell: I meet many vice-chancellors to discuss issues of importance and interest to them, including reforms of our national qualification system. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is for higher education institutions to decide what use they make of all qualifications in their admissions procedures. The recent report undertaken by the 1994 group of universities shows a widespread welcome of the changes being made to A-levels to ensure that they provide the right level of stretch and challenge for those going on to higher education.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister accept that universities regard IGCSEs as having more academic rigour than GCSEs? Can he explain to my 15-year-old son, who just got an A* in his IGCSE maths, why the Government regard that achievement as being of no value?

Bill Rammell: The qualification is not accredited. Let us look at the facts. IGCSEs are not compatible with the national curriculum. For example, the English language IGCSE does not include compulsory study of Shakespeare or any other author, unlike the GCSE, and an assessment of speaking and listening is optional, whereas it is compulsory for GCSE. Furthermore, there is no non-calculator paper in the maths IGCSE. Those are the concerns. The IGCSE is not an approved qualification for funding, and as it has not been accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, there is no regularised mechanism to ensure comparability with GCSEs.

David Chaytor: In respect of the research-intensive universities, has the Minister considered the impact of the introduction of the A* grade at A-level? Specifically, does he think that the A* grade will increase or decrease the proportion of students from state schools in research-intensive universities?

Bill Rammell: We need to monitor that issue. The latest modelling shows a very marginal change, not the kind of change that my hon. Friend suggests, but I accept that as we move towards an A* qualification, we need to keep the issue under close review.

Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Minister that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he does not realise that public confidence in the quality and rigour of public examinations is falling, as evidenced this week by the announcement that students of modern foreign languages will no longer undergo an examination, merely a continual assessment by the teacher? Does he also appreciate that his Government's failure to accept the IGCSE as a proper qualification, when the market clearly believes that it is one, merely adds to the lack of public confidence in the Government's willingness to maintain standards in our public examinations?

Bill Rammell: There is a real and ongoing problem of Members of the House seeking to run down the qualifications gained by young people in this country. When the director-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's education branch examined our A-level system a couple of years ago, he identified that no similar qualification anywhere in the world was as rigorously and regularly tested. It is instructive that Opposition Members talk of the IGCSE, a qualification undertaken predominantly in independent schools. I urge them to concentrate on the needs and interests of the vast majority of children in their constituencies, who do not attend independent schools.

Astronomy Research

Ann McKechin: What assessment his Department has made of the future of astronomy research.

Ian Pearson: The UK has world-leading expertise in astronomy research, including expertise at Glasgow university in gravitational wave radiation. The Government are increasing the budget of the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the main public funder of astronomy research in the UK, by 13.6 per cent. over the next three years. We have asked Research Councils UK, as part of its continuing oversight of the health of disciplines, to conduct a cross-council review of physics research, including astronomy. The review will be led by Bill Wakeham, vice-chancellor of the university of Southampton, and I expect the review panel to report to RCUK in the summer.

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the good record of Glasgow university, but as he will be aware, its physics department is dependent on the STFC for more than 85 per cent. of its research budget. Does he agree that, pending the outcome of the Wakeham review, it would be premature to cut programmes—by up to 25 per cent. in the case of Glasgow? Instead, and not reaching for the stars, may I ask him to consider a transitional arrangement?

Ian Pearson: I agree that a cut would be premature and it is not happening. Overall, the expected number of astronomy research grants in 2008-09 is 323, which is significantly more than the 247 that there were at the start of the comprehensive spending review period in 2005-06. In this financial year, including the impact of full economic costing, universities will have had a 67 per cent. increase in astronomy funding compared with 2005-06. That represents real investment in university research departments. I congratulate those at the university of Glasgow who undertake astronomy research. They are world class in their field.

Adam Afriyie: I am disappointed to hear the Minister boasting once again about science funding and physics funding, because as a direct result of his decision on STFC funding last year, physicists are saying that there is a crisis. Astronomers, researchers and the Royal Astronomical Society also say that there is a crisis. Does he accept that there is a crisis, or does he think that they are all wrong?

Ian Pearson: I am aware of the number of representations that I have had from the astronomy community and the particle physics community as a result of the STFC's settlement, but we should look at the facts. There will be no cuts to particle physics grants in the coming financial year. The research grants to astronomy are at their highest level for many years. We have seen a doubling in the science budget. We are spending over £500 million on physics a year, and that figure will go up over the next three years. So we have a sound track record of major investment in physics. Physics is one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the Wakeham review will want to take a broad look overall at the health of the discipline.

Apprenticeships

Chris McCafferty: What steps the Government are taking to encourage apprenticeships.

David Lammy: At the heart of our reforms will be the creation of a new national apprenticeships service to drive up the number of apprenticeship places and ensure that young people and adults get the opportunities to succeed.

Chris McCafferty: My hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous welcome for the investment in my constituency, Calder Valley, which has many high-end engineering companies, but what can his Department do to encourage more young people, particularly girls, and women who have taken career breaks into reskilling through engineering apprenticeships?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right to say that in relation to women, there are two issues that are important for engineering. We should make the system flexible enough, and we should have enough advanced apprenticeships to ensure that women returning to work after having children can progress within the profession. I am grateful for the work that we have been able to do to fund WISE—the initiative within engineering to help women return to work—and for the increased places in advanced apprenticeship. The Science, Engineering and, Manufacturing Technologies Alliance and the sector skills councils that cover the range of engineering skills are doing a great deal of work to advertise to women and to ensure that those places are available for them to take up if they want to.

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the importance that the Government attach to increasing the number of apprenticeships, but does the Minister agree that skilled engineers, tradesmen and technicians are in huge demand in the UK economy and that many of the current vacancies are being filled by immigrants? What new emphasis can the Government give to apprenticeships to attract young people in the United Kingdom to take up apprenticeships to fill the vacancies that are so important to the employers of this country?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right. In a strong economy, in which there has been growth in every quarter, young people in the marketplace compete with people who have arrived in this country from a number of places. That is why we initiated the apprenticeship review, which we published last month. The whole thrust of that is to make it easier for businesses to take on young apprentices and adults. One important thing in relation to engineering, given the size of some of the companies, is group training associations. Through them a small engineering company, perhaps low down in the supply chain, can cluster together with a training provider. There is then a hub and spoke model, in which there is someone to deal with the training and necessary bureaucracy, and the company can have the apprentice it needs.

Leitch Report

Si�n James: What progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations of the Leitch report.

John Denham: Last summer, the Government published World Class Skills, which sets out our plans for implementing the Leitch recommendations. To support that ambitious reform programme, total Government investment in adult skills will increase to 5.3 billion by 2010-11. That increase in investment will support more than 7 million learners in the period 2008-09 to 2010-11.

Si�n James: In Swansea, there is a wonderful flagship development called the SA1 project, in which small and medium-sized enterprises can relocate to an old dockland area. Many of those companies have fewer than 20 employees and they are reluctant to invest in skills and training because of time and financial pressures. Will the Secretary of State consider how we can invest in and support them by advising and guiding them on how they can invest in the training and skills agenda?

John Denham: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard my earlier statement about investment in the leadership and management of small and medium-sized enterprises in England. That is precisely designed to ensure that the leadership of small companies understand their skills needs and are supported in using public money. We have shown that that model works in England and we are expanding it dramatically. I hope that the devolved Administrations, who bear responsibility for skills in their areas, will look at it and see what would be appropriate for their circumstances.

Topical Questions

David Taylor: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: I have today given further information about the development of the new advancement and careers service in London. Getting from a job with few prospects to a good job can be as tough as getting off benefit and into work. People who want to get on need support in improving their skills and often in sorting out child care, tax credit, housing and other issues. The new joined-up approach to providing advice and support is crucial to overcoming those barriers. Two pilot services will open in London later this year. The first will serve Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth; the second will be developed in partnership with the Mayor and will have a particular focus on those who already have a job but want to develop further skills, take more responsibility and earn higher wages.

David Taylor: We talk about social inclusion and social mobility, yet the 50 per cent. of the population in the lowest three socio-economic groups obtain fewer than 10 per cent. of Oxbridge places. More than 50 per cent. of those places go to the less than 10 per cent. of the population who are educated in private schools. What urgent action is planned to tackle that scandalous social stasis, whereby many thousands of able, working-class students are being pushed out by the sharp elbows and deep pockets of the well-to-do?

John Denham: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education acknowledged earlier, this is an important issue. Let me say this to the House. There are things that can be done directly by universities in their admissions processes. It is significant that this week Cambridge university has announced that it will drop the requirement to have a separate application form and is falling in line with UCAS. Equally, if children are educated in schools where teachers say to them, Oxbridge is not for somebody like you, it is not surprising that Oxbridge does not recruit those students. We also have to work with schools to ensure that young people of high ability from working class backgrounds get every support and encouragement to fulfil their full potential. That must start in the school, which cannot expect everything to be done at the moment of admission to university.

John Barrett: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh is one of this country's centres of excellence for astronomical research. What assurances can he give to staff there that the actions of the Science and Technology Facilities Council will not rob the country of that first-class facility?

John Denham: I acknowledge the valuable work that is done in astronomy departments right across the United Kingdom. The point that needs to be made is twofold. As with all research councils, the STFC will, over time, make decisions about changing priorities in research. The fundamental point to accept is that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation said, total funding going into university research for astronomy will next year be 63 per cent. higher than it was in 2005. This is not a Government who are cutting science budgets, and that needs to be accepted. There will always be difficult decisions to be taken about where scientific research should be concentrated, but without those difficult decisions things would never move forward, and that would not be right either.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Durham university and its partners on bidding to sponsor three academies in Durham? Does he agree that, if successful, that could be a very positive step forward in terms of raising aspirations further in this country and securing more opportunities for our young people?

John Denham: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Durham university. The structural link that needs to be built between universities and schools, whether in the form of academies, trusts or in other ways, is critical to raising aspirations and improving social equity and access to university in the way that Members of this House want. I hope that all universities will look at the opportunities that exist in their local communities and regions to see how they can build those strong and deep structural links in the way that Durham is trying to do.

David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his student support regulations are seriously defective? Ministers say that students in families on between 21,000 and 38,000 should receive a partial maintenance grant based on a sliding scale, but the regulations say that they should all receive the maximum 1,230. Does he agree with the National Union of Students that students should claim whatever financial support they are entitled to?

John Denham: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise this question. I assure him, and the House, that I am advised that the intention of the regulations is clear and that their drafting would not give rise to a claim for higher payments in the way that he suggests. Local authorities and the Student Loans Company use the accompanying guidance when they assess applications for student support. No money has been paid out incorrectly, and no local authority has raised any concerns. None the less, given that he has raised the issue, we are reprinting the regulations with the correction made.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that I gave him advance notice of the question. It sounds as though we are going to get the regulations amended in the light of the points that I made to him. Let us be clear about this. In the past month, he has admitted that prisoners have received hundreds of thousands of pounds in student maintenance because of what he called an unjustifiable provision in his regulations, and this morning he has said that he is going to change the regulations again because of another mistake in the rules of access to maintenance grant. So prisoners have been getting money that they should not and students can claim money that they are not supposed to get. Why is his Department so incapable of getting the right money to the right students under these regulations?

John Denham: Of course, that is not what has happened. On the question that the hon. Gentleman raised yesterday, clear guidance was made available by my Department on that issue in December. We are not amending the regulations. We are not coming back to the House to seek its permission to change the regulations. They are being reprinted

David Willetts: But they are definitely wrong.

John Denham: Yes; we are reprinting them to make the intentions of the regulations absolutely clear, as I told the House. The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong when he says that the drafting of the regulations gives rise to a higher claim. He is simply wrong about that. However, I am grateful to him for the way in which he raised that point.
	With regard to payments of maintenance grants and maintenance loans to prisoners, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that as the Secretary of State who found out about that, I am the Secretary of State who took action to stop it.

Katy Clark: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent projections that suggest that it will take woman graduates on average 16 years to repay their student debt, while it will take male graduates only 11 years. Will he confirm that that will be taken into account in the development of student financial support policy?

John Denham: The issue is that repayment of student loans is income contingent. In other words, it is related to how much people earn. I believe that my hon. Friend is right in principle in what she says. However, the issue that needs to be addressed is not the structure of the repayment of student loans, but the many other reasons why women earn less than men in our society. The Government are addressing that matter through the women and work commission, and in other ways. That is where we should focus our attention.

Desmond Swayne: When the A-level courses beginning in September are reduced from six modules to four, is it the intention of Ministers that students should study the four modules more rigorously, or simply compensate by doing additional A-levels? Will that disadvantage students who are now in the lower sixth form year, who go on a gap year, and find themselves competing for university entry against fellows with more A-levels?

Bill Rammell: The move from six modules to four has been widely welcomed, along with the greater use of synoptic questions and the extended project. All the indications are that universities greatly welcome those changes as a means of improving what is already a very good qualification.

Rob Marris: I salute the Government's support for pure research in science, including physics. Last summer, I visited the impressive and worthwhile particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva. Can the Minister tell me how much support the Government has given to CERN, and when the facility will reopen following a rebuild?

Ian Pearson: The Government have provided a substantial amount of money to CERNfrom memory, I think it is something like 700 million during the past four years. I can confirm that according to current plans, CERN will be open for business, with its new large hadron collider, in July this year. It is a tremendously exciting projectthe biggest physics project everand it will provide great opportunities for the four experiment types planned at CERN.

Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State use his Department's influence with the Learning and Skills Council to see whether it can provide funding for projects such as Mentoring for U at Chelmsford prison? The project does fantastic work in helping dyslexic prisoners to improve their literacy skills, which helps with their rehabilitation and gives them a better start once they leave prison.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I met the LSC leadership on offender learning this week, and I will be happy to ask the council to look at the scheme he described. He will be aware that in our test-bed regions in the east of England, Bedford and the west midlands, much pioneering work is going on in relation to offender learning. I shall ask the LSC to consider the issue.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend realise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the west midlands, which has always been noted for its manufacturing base? What is he doing about the quality of apprenticeships?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows that, in the past few years, the Government, through the Learning and Skills Council, have rigorously raised standards in apprenticeships and withdrawn support from training providers that were not seen to deliver. We will go further through the apprenticeships review. First, it will be clear that an apprenticeship that does not involve work-based training with an employer is not an apprenticeship. Secondly, in the draft apprenticeship Bill, which we will publish later this year, we will set out the basis for clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of apprentices, employers and the training system to ensure that, nationally, across the sector and across occupations, the apprenticeship is universally regarded as a high quality training qualification.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend impress on his European counterparts the importance of the work to reskill and upskill the employees of Vauxhall Motors in partnership with our further education sector? Will he stress that that is the way in which Europe will win the race to the top and stand a chance of competing in the global economy?

John Denham: I would be happy to discuss the details of the issue that my hon. Friend raises with him. In general, he is right that this country, contrary to what is often said, has a strong manufacturing base. We are still the sixth largest manufacturer in the world. However, our future lies in high value added manufacturing, which depends on having the research capability and the skills in the work force to do the best engineering and manufacturing. Skills are at the heart of that, and I would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the work at Vauxhall Motors.

David Wright: Further education colleges work best when they are allowed maximum flexibility on the sort of courses that they can put together and the partners with whom they can work. What more can we do to reduce the ring-fencing of budgets in the FE sector to promote better educational partnerships with not only other educational institutions but workplaces?

Bill Rammell: May I say to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in the activities of his local FE college, that there is a genuine balance to be struck between the central direction that we need to achieve our skills targets and giving sufficient flexibility beyond those targets? The current system of funding is moving in that direction, and I hope that that answers his concerns.

Business of the House

Shailesh Vara: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House for the forthcoming business?

Helen Goodman: The business for the week commencing 25 February will be:
	Monday 25 FebruaryDebate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to international development followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [6th allotted day]any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to international development.
	Tuesday 26 FebruaryDebate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision making, followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [7th allotted day]any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision making, followed by motion to approve a local government restructuring order relating to Cheshire.
	Wednesday 27 FebruaryDebate on the treaty of Lisbon provisions relating to climate change, followed by continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [8th allotted day]any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to climate change and remaining amendments on clause 2.
	Thursday 28 FebruaryA debate on Welsh affairs.
	Friday 29 FebruaryPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 3 March will include:
	Monday 3 MarchContinuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [9th allotted day] covering clauses 3 to 7.
	Tuesday 4 MarchContinuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [10th allotted day] covering clauses 3 to 7 not completed on 3 March.
	Wednesday 5 MarchContinuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [11th allotted day] covering clause 8, the schedule, new clauses and new schedules.
	Thursday 6 MarchA debate on women's representation in democracy.
	Friday 7 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 6 and 13 March will be:
	Thursday 6 MarchA debate on the International Health Partnership.
	Thursday 13 MarchA debate on the report from the Joint Committee on Human rights on the human rights of older people in health care.

Shailesh Vara: My thanks to the Deputy Leader of the House for that information.
	The Government promised that, in place of a referendum, we would have line-by-line scrutiny and 20 days of debate on the Lisbon treaty. But the House has been given only 14 days of debate, and last night a group of defence amendments was never even reached. Failing to debate such an important and weighty issue as the defence of our country is unacceptable. Will the Deputy Leader of the House commit to giving an extra day of defence debate?
	We found out this week that, to meet Government targets, seriously ill patients are left for hours in ambulances instead of being admitted to accident and emergency. Over the past 15 months, such deplorable treatment of patients has led to at least 44,000 delays being reported. May I suggest that we have a topical debate on the Government's obsession with targets and the impact that it is having on patient care?
	Having lost the personal details of 25 million people and subjected millions of families to the appalling mismanagement of tax credits, staff at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are now in line for record bonuses of 23 million. That is almost 1 for every person whose details have been lost. Will the Chancellor make a statement to explain why the Government are rewarding a Department that has failed our families so badly?
	The Government have spent 800 million trying to cut the number of students dropping out of university. But more than one fifth of those students are still dropping out, which is a decrease of a mere 1 per cent. over eight years. Spending 800 million for a 1 per cent. return is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. We need the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to make a statement to the House on the disastrous failure of his policy.
	Only a small number of illegal immigrants are ever deported from the UK. But we now find that a large number of those people are turned back by the country to which they are deported and returned to the UK because the Home Office has messed up their paperwork. Even when the Home Office tries to deport someone, it cannot get it right. We need an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on the continued mismanagement of her Department.
	Finally, two years ago, Tony Blair promised that our troops would get anything that they needed for their protection. But this week, commanders in Afghanistan have said that they do not have funding for helicopters that they desperately need. The Government coroner says that troops have inadequate equipment, and there are reports that defence cuts may be as much as 3 billion. This cannot be right. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence urgently, explaining why the Government are failing properly to protect the brave men and women who daily put their lives at risk in some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
	This is a Government who have reneged on their pledges to Parliament, failed patients, let down our future generation and betrayed our armed forces. This is a Government who are staggering from one disaster to another. They are incapable, incompetent and in a mess. The British people know that they deserve better and they are not impressed.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman began by raising the consideration of the Bill to enact the Lisbon treaty. He knows very well that we wanted to give the House a proper opportunity for substantial consideration of the Bill. We have set out a process, which the House agreed following a full debate, that enables the House to have a discussion on the substantive issues, as well as giving time to consider amendments. The Opposition, moreover, accepted that approach in their own programme motion. Furthermore, the Government promised to be flexible with respect to the timetabling on individual days, and we have been flexible. We were flexible yesterday, giving three hours for the amendments as well as three hours for the general debate. The suggestion that there has not been proper consideration of this Bill is quite ridiculous. We have allowed 12 days for the Committee of the whole House, which is more than the Committee stages for the Nice and Amsterdam treaties and the Single European Act put together.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to raise the issue of waits in ambulances for A and E. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that, in the past two years, 98 per cent. of patients were seen, diagnosed and treated within four hours. In the last quarter for which we have statistics, 2.7 per cent. of people waited more than four hours, and in the quarter before that it was 1.7 per cent. It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to scaremonger in this way.
	The hon. Gentleman then went on to talk about the HM Revenue and Customs bonuses. The bonuses that were paid in [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation going on, and that is unfair. The hon. Lady has been asked several questions, and she is entitled to answer them.

Helen Goodman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The bonuses paid in 2007-08 were for work carried out in 2006-07. In line with the wider civil service, bonuses are paid to encourage and reward officials and to enable HMRC to improve its performance and service to taxpayers and the Government.
	The hon. Gentleman then complained about student drop-outs. The truth is that we rank fifth in the OECD in the first degree completion rates. We have a survival rate of 78 per cent., which is far better than that of most countries in the European Union.
	On defence spending, the hon. Gentleman once again indulged in some quite ridiculous scaremongering. The truth is that, in cash terms, the United Kingdom is the second highest spender on defence; we are second only to the United States. The increases that have been agreed in the comprehensive spending review baseline represent an average 1.5 per cent. real-terms increase over the next few years.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of deportations. I think that those points were perfectly well answered by the Prime Minister yesterday, but if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has any further questions on the issue, they can raise them in Home Office questions on Monday.

Martin Salter: The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware of the long-standing support of three Home Secretaries and 180 MPs of all parties, as well as Amnesty International, women's organisations, faith groups and thousands of individuals, for the Jane Longhurst campaign against violent internet pornography. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to deliver quickly on the assurances given at the Dispatch Box by the Justice Secretary to include the promised measures in the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that is currently in the other place?

Helen Goodman: Of course I am well aware of this important issue, and of the effective campaigning that my hon. Friend has done to raise the issue with Ministers and in the House. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill contains many good, important measures. As he knows, it is vital that the Bill secures support in both Houses to a reasonable timetable. That means that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made. However, I am sure that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are aware of the public support for the measures that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I will refer the matter to the Secretary of State.

Robert Smith: In answering the question about defence, the Deputy Leader of the House talked about the amount of money spent by the Government, but the crucial issue is the burden placed by the Government on soldiers in the front line. The International Development Committee visit to Afghanistan revealed how vital it is to have adequate helicopter support because the transport situation is so difficult. A defence statement would be useful, so we could ask questions on the real impact on the ground of helicopter deployments.
	When the Government brought in modernisation, it was put to us that the whole point of timetabling was to improve scrutiny, but as we saw with the Northern Rock Bill, if timetabling is not handled properly, we do not get effective scrutiny, and the Government were unable to deal adequately with concerns in the House about the Granite vehicle, which so affected what exactly the Government were nationalising. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that, on vital issues such as Northern Rock, we have proper time for debate?
	I declare my entry in the Register of Members' Interests in respect of energy matters to do with my shareholding in Shell and to do with the offshore oil and gas industry. I also remind the House that I am vice-president of Energy Action Scotland, a fuel poverty charity. I call for a debate on fuel prices and note that yet more price rises for the country to contend with are revealed today. The Government have relied on low fuel prices to tackle fuel poverty, but we desperately need more investment and effective measures for warm homes. The Government need to explain how they intend to deal with their increased VAT take as prices rise and with the increased profits for the fuel companies that have come from carbon tax allocations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has prayed against the changes in immigration regulations and would like to see that matter debated on the Floor of the House so that Members can express their concerns about how those changes might impact on people. In previous questions, my hon. Friend has welcomed the fact that we are to have debates on Welsh affairs and women's affairs, but when Commonwealth day comes, may we also have a debate on Commonwealth issues, which would allow a wide range of concerns to be raised across the House?
	Finally, in the Christmas Adjournment debate I raised issues about the Post Office and the Deputy Leader of the House arranged for the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office to reply in writing, but it would be useful to have a debate now on the progress of the post office closure programme, so that Members confronted by it could inform the House how it is working on the ground. Those of us who represent the north-east of Scotland will have to wait until May to find out, but we still need to know how the closure programme will happen. The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has said that if we save a post office, we do not necessarily have to close another one in lieu. Many Members are saying, apocryphally, that that is not the message they are getting on the ground with the current closure programme. A debate on the post office closure programme would therefore be extremely timely and would help us to understand exactly what the Government require of the Post Office.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman began by raising the issue of resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am sure he is aware that the financial resources for work in those countries is over and above the normal defence budget expenditure. He went on to raise questions about the handling of the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill. When it was decided to bring that measure forward, it was felt important that the House should have the opportunity to agree how it would progress. That is why there was a debate on the programme motion on Tuesday. All stages are being properly gone through here and in the other place. Opposition Members tend to want it both ways: on the one hand, they say they understand the reasons for expediting the legislation, but on the other hand, they complain when it is handled quickly.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to raise the issue of rising fuel prices and fuel poverty. Let me remind him that this Government introduced the winter fuel allowance, which has now been increased to 300 for older pensioners. We are also spending record sums on Warm Front, the programme to insulate houses and improve heating, which gets to the fundamental issues that the hon. Gentleman was trying to raise.
	As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are taking advice from Ofgem on the competition issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the prayer laid by his colleague the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) against the immigration regulations. Obviously, colleagues at the Home Office are fully aware of that.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) also requested, in essence, two topical debates; that is what I shall take his suggestion to be.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position. The fact of the matter is that topical debates are in Government time. He asked for a debate on the Commonwealth and another on the Post Office restructuring programme, which is under way. I well know that that is a matter of concern across the House, particularly in relation to rural issues. The truth is that the Government have spent 2.2 billion on supporting the Post Office and will spend a further 1.7 billion, so Royal Mail should be able to manage a proper network within those resources.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, consultations are under way. I want to emphasise the fact that those consultations have a real impact on outcomes. For example, across the 11 areas for which final decisions have been announced, 23 closure decisions have been withdrawn. In addition, with 19 area plans so far published, an average of more than 10 per cent. of the initial proposals have been changed, so it is important that people take part in the consultations.

David Lepper: Further to the assurances that the Deputy Leader of the House has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) on legislation to deal with violent internet pornography, she will be aware that the need for such legislation was highlighted by the brutal murder some five years ago of my constituent, Jane Longhurst, a respected teacher.
	Assurances have been given in the past by the Government. In addition to the reminders that the Deputy Leader of the House has undertaken to give to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, will she remind them of the 50,000-signature petition on the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and I presented to Parliament, and of the fact that the Dutch Parliament, as well as other European Parliaments, is carefully watching what happens in the House with a view to introducing legislation along similar lines?

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, which I shall relay to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

Michael Spicer: When does the Deputy Leader of the House expect to receive the Electoral Commission proposal for the single registration of Members' interests?

Helen Goodman: I do not have the timetable here with me. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Geraldine Smith: When are we going to get the regional Select Committees that we were promised so that we can begin to hold to account some of the quangos that operate in our regions?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is quite right: it is important that the accountability of regional development authorities and other regional bodies is improved, which is why the proposal was made in the summer in the White Paper The Governance of Britain. The way that that should be done is being considered by the Modernisation Committee, and it will report soon.

Mark Pritchard: Given that the Government disgracefully rigged the business of the House yesterdaydiscussion of the Lisbon treatymay we have an urgent debate on the foreign policy, defence and security elements of that treaty so that we can send out a clear message from the House that we care about these matters, unlike the Government?

Helen Goodman: The truth is that there was a debate yesterday about the defence aspects. Furthermore, next Monday there will be time for a debate on the international development aspects.

Denis Murphy: Will my hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the regulation of the life insurance industry? When my constituent, Mrs. Susan Hurrell, was diagnosed as being terminally ill with ovarian cancer and contacted her insurance company to claim as she was convinced that she had terminal illness cover, the company said that she did not. Her husband contacted the company again some weeks later; again, they were told that they did not have that cover. Some months later, the company agreed that they did in fact have cover, but it refused to pay out because they had not claimed within the 13-week period.
	Does my hon. Friend agree

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made the point.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case and raised an important issue. I will take away his suggestion for a topical debate on the matter.

Angus Robertson: This week, the United Kingdom Government recognised that independence in Europe represents optimal relations for nations in Europeexcept Scotland, of course. A Scotland Office Minister said that there should be no changes to the devolved settlement, in the same week that Wendy Alexander wants more and the Prime Minister wants more and less all at the same time. When can we have a debate in Government time on that confusing approach by the Whitehall Government?

Helen Goodman: I do not believe that there is any confusion at all on that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise any concerns that he has with Scotland Office Ministers in questions.

Kate Hoey: Mr. Speaker, you will know that this week it was announced that 169 sub-post offices are to close in London, many of them in deprived areas. I have one in my constituency, in Vauxhall streeta little town centre that has just been regenerated, but which will now have its heart torn out. As the Leader of the House herself has some such post offices in her constituency, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for a debate on post offices, because people do not believe that the consultation is anything other than a sham?

Helen Goodman: As I said earlier to another hon. Member, I do not believe that the consultations are a sham. However, I accept that there is strong feeling across the House on the matter and we will keep the question whether to have further considerationin addition to the Adjournment and Westminster Hall debatesunder review.

Bernard Jenkin: May I put it to the Deputy Leader of the House that when she says that we are spending 12 days considering the Lisbon treaty in Committee, she is saying something that is not true? Half the time is spent on debates of the Government's own choosingas a platform for their own views, not for Ministers to respond to amendments tabled by hon. and right hon. Members. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that line-by-line scrutiny is taking place when whole rafts of amendmentsfor example, on defence and foreign policyhave been simply passed over and not discussed at all.
	May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) for at least an extra day on the defence aspects of the treaty? Otherwise, the Government will not have delivered their promise of line-by-line scrutiny.

Helen Goodman: The truth is that the approach that has been taken to consideration of the Bill and the treaty allows for consideration of amendments and for debates on the underlying issues in the Lisbon treaty. That is what concerns the British public.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a statement from my hon. Friend on the process for the root and branch review of Members' expenses, which is under way? As I understand it, the House gave authority to the Members Estimate Committee to carry out that review, but if press and media reports are to be believed, everyone and their granny wants a piece of the action. Can we have clarity on the issue, if for no other reason than that the authority of the House be undermined no longer?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is quite right that this is an important issue and the public need to know that the resources that Members have for fulfilling their responsibilities are adequate and properly accounted for. As he knows, before the Standards and Privileges Committee looked into the case of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), the House decided to refer the question of all the allowances to the Members Estimate Committee for a root and branch review. That review and that work are now under way.
	In the light of the case of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Standards and Privileges Committee has proposed some changes in the operation of the Register of Members' Interests. That makes an important contribution to debate on the matter. It would be helpful if the House considered all the issues together, and examined the Committee's suggestions in the light of the report from the Members Estimate Committee, in order to resolve the matter before the summer recess.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Deputy Leader of the House take very seriously the questions that have been put about programme motions, not least those relating to the Lisbon treaty? I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is utterly wrong. Not only many Members but many people outside believe that, because of the programme motions, the House cannot undertake the job it is here to do: scrutinise legislationin this instance, a treaty. Large tranches of amendments are not being debated at all. Will the hon. Lady ask the Leader of the House and the Government to provide time for a debate on programme motions and their destructive effect on the House's ability to do its job?

Helen Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, a whole day's debate was devoted to the programming of the business, and the motion that followed the debate was passed. The hon. Gentleman is frustrated, but the House's overall view was made clear on that occasion.

Julie Morgan: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that fair trade fortnight begins next Monday. Is she also aware that Cardiff became the world's first fair trade capital in 2004, and that it now contains more than 150 outletscafs, shops, businesses and other organisationsthat use and sell fair trade products? Does she not consider this important movement to be worthy of a debate?

Helen Goodman: Fair trade is indeed a very important movement in this country. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the city of Cardiff on the significant progress they have made in expanding fair trade in the city, and I will consider her request for a debate.

Jo Swinson: Over the past few months more and more research has been published calling into question the Government's policy on biofuels, including an excellent report by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. I declare an interest as a member of the Committee. In the light of that research, will the Government find time for a debate so that the House can reach a view on an issue that may affect the country's environmental future?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady is right: biofuels are an important new development. DEFRA will consider the Environmental Audit Committee's report, but, as the hon. Lady knows, all Select Committee reports can be debated in Westminster Hall.

Michael Connarty: The Deputy Leader of the House will recall that before the recess we made some important decisions on the Standing Orders of the European Scrutiny Committee and its Sub-Committees. May I urge her to look at the account of those decisions, which I have passed to her? As a result of one of them, we held our first public meeting yesterday, in line with the Modernisation Committee's recommendation that we should examine documents and conduct pre and post-Council scrutiny in public.
	The Deputy Leader of the House said that she would try to involve Members more in European scrutiny. Five debates are outstanding that are to take place in the new European Committees, but they are not listed on the papers that have been circulated among Members. Will the Deputy Leader of the House undertake to list the debates we have arranged each week and circulate them by some method, so that Members with an interest can let it be known that they wish to take part?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is an excellent Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and he makes a good point. We have made important decisions on improving European scrutiny, and I am glad that the Committee reached agreement yesterday on how that improvement should operate in practice.
	As my hon. Friend knows, we promised the House that in the autumn we would review the operation of the new procedures. I will consider his point about the European Standing Committeesor the European Committees as they are now to be calledbut I remind him that during the debate on European scrutiny I said that those debates would be listed on the Order Paper in future.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the Environment Agency, which has just announced that in Somerset it will stop cleaning out the waterways and ditches, or reams as we call them? There has been no consultation with anyone, and I do not think even the Government know what is going on. Anyone who knows anything about flooding knows that it is desirable for the water to go into the rivers as quickly as possible so that it flows away. If the waterways and reams are not cleared, we will experience another of the disasters that we have suffered over the past two years, and the situation will get worse.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I will ask my colleagues in DEFRA to write to him about it.

Brian Iddon: There are about six almost identical local authority private Bills before the House designed to deal with the nuisance that pedlars are causing in many towns and cities throughout the country, and even more such Bills are likely to be presented. Bills of this kind are extremely expensive to promote. Will the Government consider supporting my Pedlars (Street Trading Regulation) Bill? It would save Government time, and an awful lot of public money.

Helen Goodman: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government consider all private Members' Bills that are presented to the House. He probably also knows that the matter he has raised was considered in some detail last year when we debated the Bill that became the Charities Act 2006. However, I will draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Cabinet Office.

Justine Greening: May I add to the calls for a debate on the post office closure programme? We are seeing savage cuts throughout London: my constituency, for instance, will have lost more than half its post offices since 2003. Given that there is cross-party concern and that post offices are vital community assets, will the Government find time in their programme for a debate?

Helen Goodman: As I have told other Members, I know that there is strong feeling about the matter across the House. I will relay the hon. Lady's concerns to Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Rob Marris: The Government frequently say that time for debate in the Chamber is limited. On Thursday 28 February we are to have a one-day debate on Welsh affairs, although many Welsh issues are devolved. The population of my region, the west midlands, is considerably larger than that of Wales, but there is no devolution in the west midlands. When may we have a one-day debate on the west midlands?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is an effective champion of the west midlands and of his constituency, and he has made an important point. I hope he will be encouraged by the establishment of regional Select Committees, in which it will be possible to consider such matters more thoroughly.

George Young: The Deputy Leader of the House has just announced a further two weeks of unremitting European legislation. At the same time, important domestic Bills are stacked up awaiting Report. The Health and Social Care, Housing and Regeneration, Energy, Education and Skills, and Planning Bills are all out of Committee. Can we not vary this rich European diet with some home-grown roughage?

Helen Goodman: I am sure that many Members are sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as he has heard, it is also the case that many Members would like more rather than less discussion of the Lisbon treaty, and I think it important that we complete that process.

Phyllis Starkey: May we have a debate on the powers of the police to deal with armed foreign nationals on United Kingdom territory? My question arises from an incident that took place in September 2005, which has just been reported. Apparently, British police were deterred from arresting an alleged war criminal, General Almog, when armed El Al air marshals refused them access although British sovereignty covers planes once they have landed on United Kingdom soil. This is clearly an incredibly important issue, which extends beyond that case to other possible cases.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend raises a significant point, and I will ensure that her remarks are drawn to the Home Secretary's attention.

Mark Hunter: As the Deputy Leader of the House might be aware, next week has been designated national eating disorders awareness week. There are currently two early-day motions on the subject, one of them in my name: early-day motion 973.
	 [ That this House, recognising that 25th February to 2nd March has been designated Eating Disorders Awareness Week, notes with growing dismay the increasing number of young people, especially female, suffering from eating disorders; further notes with concern the number of websites encouraging millions of vulnerable young people to become anorexic or bulimic, falsely promoting eating disorders as a lifestyle choice and supplying tips on how to maintain their disorder in secret; believes that these sites should act responsibly towards young people; and calls on the Government to promote awareness of the dangers of these sites and provide support for those affected by eating disorders and their families. ]
	According to official estimates, up to 1 million people a year now suffer from eating disorders and up to 90,000 are actively seeking help. May we have a debate on these important issues, with particular reference to the poisonous influence of websites that actively encourage vulnerable young people, particularly young women, to choose anorexia or bulimia almost as a lifestyle choice?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important issue to do with young women's health, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of not only the Department for Children, Schools and Families, but the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which has responsibility for the regulation of the internet.

Ann Cryer: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) have touched on this matter, but may we have a debate on increases in the winter fuel payment, which are necessary as it is not keeping pace with the cost of keeping warm? I must declare an interest in that. May we look, too, at the massive increases in the profits of British Gas?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend makes a surprising revelation in her question on the winter fuel allowance. The Department for Work and Pensions keeps the level of benefits under constant review and, as she knows, Ofgem is looking at competition in the energy market.

Nigel Evans: May I offer my support to calls for a debate on Commonwealth issues? It would give us an opportunity to find out what discussions the Government have had, particularly with African Commonwealth countries about what they are doing to help influence change in Zimbabwe. As President Mugabe tucks into his birthday cake todayit is his 84th birthdayhe will do so safe in the knowledge that many of the other inhabitants of his country are starving because of a lack of food and an inflation rate running at 100,000 per cent. African Commonwealth countries must do more to influence change in Zimbabwe.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the serious situation in Zimbabwe. I know that Foreign Office Ministers do pay attention to it, and that they raise it with colleagues at international meetings.

Damian Green: During last week's recess, we learned that the security of this building was badly compromised: an illegal immigrant who ran away from security guards at Heathrow in December 2004 was found to have been working here for almost two months on a false pass. Home Office Ministers tried to cover that up, but failed to do so as the information was leaked to a Sunday newspaper. Will the Home Secretarywho, happily, has just arrived in the Chamberbe asked to make a statement on this issue, which is clearly of huge importance to the security of all of us?

Helen Goodman: I think that what the hon. Gentleman has been led to believe from reading the newspapers is inaccurate. I will ask the Home Secretary to write to him.

Hugh Robertson: Kent has several ports of entry, and in recent years it has taken delivery of a number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum. The cost of providing the support they need has now risen to just over 10 million, and Kent county council is having considerable trouble reclaiming that money from the Home Office and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on this important subject?

Helen Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the general policy on these issues was discussed yesterday following the Home Secretary's oral statement. If he has further concerns, he should write to Home Office Ministers.

Simon Burns: Will the Deputy Leader arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to make a statement justifying the changes to the regulations governing the granting to supermarkets of licences to run pharmacies. I want the Secretary of State to explain why the Government have changed the rules, which will tie the hands of primary care trusts so they have to grant any application to any supermarket that promises to stay open for 100 hours or more. That will put out of business many small, family-run pharmacies that have served their customers well over many years.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Obviously, the first consideration is the safety and well-being of patients, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of Health Ministers.

Richard Younger-Ross: May I draw the Deputy Leader's attention to early-day motion 987 on tandoori and curry chefs?
	 [ That this House notes the concern of Asian restaurateurs that new immigration regulations are causing a shortage of tandoori and curry chefs; further notes that this shortage is threatening the viability of many restaurants that have contributed both financially and culturally to the UK; and calls on the Government to review the regulations, such as the need to speak good English before arrival, so as to ensure an adequate supply of temporary work visas for tandoori and curry chefs. ]
	The Deputy Leader will no doubt be aware of the contribution Asian businesses have made to this country, both financially and culturallyindeed, chicken tikka masala was voted this country's favourite dish. Such businesses are struggling to recruit new chefs, however, because of immigration regulations. May we have a statement on the workings of the regulations so that we can look at how such businesses can continue to prosper for this country?

Helen Goodman: It is, of course, important that Indian restaurants in this country retain their high standards. However, I do not think that anyone can seriously suggest that different immigration regulations should apply to the sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a debate yesterday on this matter following the Home Secretary's statement, and he can raise his detailed point in Home Office questions on Monday.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that I am now down to my Thursday regulars. I will take them all, but I must have one supplementary and one alone. I am sure that Mr. Mackay will lead the way.

Andrew MacKay: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	Does the Deputy Leader of the House share the concern felt by me and many taxpayers in my constituency about the huge costs of certain inquests, particularly those involving juries? May we have a debate on that next week?

Helen Goodman: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, coroners' courts are, like all civil and criminal courts, run independently; the processes are under the control of the judiciary, which is totally independent. He will also, however, be aware that we have published a draft Coroners Bill, which we hope to introduce at some point, and which would modernise the coroner service.

James Clappison: Given our current foreign policy and defence commitments, would it not show this House in a bad light if we did not have proper line-by-line scrutiny of the Lisbon treaty, not least because it contains new provisions with possible new defence commitments, including a contingent commitment to European common defence? I ask for more time, please, to save the honour of this House.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman's point has been raised by several other Members. I have answered it, and I do not have anything further to add.

Christopher Chope: Hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren are currently choosing their A-level options, yet the Government are reducing the number of modules at A-level from six to four. Many schools think that, as a consequence, A-levels are being devalued and that, therefore, children should take more A-levels than they otherwise would have. May we have a clear response to that, which we failed to get earlier in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)?

Helen Goodman: I do not think there is any truth in the suggestion that A-levels are being devalued, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with my hon. Friends' earlier answer, but they are in control of that situation.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on teaching culture in schools? The subject is close to the Government's heart. Indeed, last week when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the Government initiative, he said he felt that it would be, among other things, the
	chance to perform on a stage, to learn a musical instrument.
	Does the Deputy Leader of the House share my concern about the news that funding for Milton Keynes music service will be cut by 113,000, meaning that many of the 5,000 students currently receiving the service will no longer do so? How does that square with this Government commitment?

Helen Goodman: The truth is that spending on schoolchildren has doubled in the past 10 years, and that has included significant improvements to music teaching and the music service across the country.

John Bercow: May we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the serial abuse of human rights in Burma and the continuing political crisis in that country? Given that only last week the vice-chairman of the Karen National Union, Padoh Mahn Sha, was assassinated at the instigation of the sadistic military dictatorship, would not such a debate allow us to expose in detail the systematic abuse of human rights, to highlight for the sham that it is the proposed political reform in that country and to chart the way to salvation with freedom, peace and justice for the long-suffering people of Burma?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty campaigner for the people of Burma. His concerns were shared across the House when we had a debate on the issue only a few months ago, but I understand that the situation is changing and I shall raise the matter in the Foreign Office.

Bob Spink: The Foreign Office replied today to my written questions on the role and duties, and terms and conditions, of the new president of the European Council. It stated:
	Discussions on these issues have not yet started.
	We are therefore handing an open cheque to the EU. May we have a debate on this absurd and irresponsible neglect of our national interest?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman knows from the business statement that EU institutional reform will be the subject of debate on Tuesday. He will then be able to make his views clear to the Minister for Europe.

Julian Lewis: Given that the Government wisely distanced themselves from the suggestions about incorporating sharia law made by my old school friend, the Archbishop of Canterburythat is the name-dropping bitmay we have a statement on consistency from whichever Minister it was who approved the decision to pay benefits in respect of multiple marriages and polygamous partners provided those arrangements were contracted abroad before people came to this country?

Helen Goodman: I understand that it is untrue to suggest that husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits; the welfare benefits date back to 1987.

Mark Harper: I want to take the Deputy Leader of the House back to the business that she announced. She will know that day 11 of the debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill will include discussion of clause 8, and thus the House will be given the opportunity to vote on whether to carry out the Government's promise to hold a referendum. That business does not have protected time and will conclude at the moment of interruption. Given that it will take place on a Wednesday, many spare hours in the evening will be available for us to debate it at length. That would be the preferable option, but will she at least confirm that the Government will protect that business? My fear, shared by many Conservative Members, is that a number of statements will be made that day to curtail debate on this incredibly important issue.

Helen Goodman: The programme motion for the consideration of the Lisbon treaty, including the arrangements for the 11th day, was agreed several weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that, contrary to what he is suggesting, fewer statements have been made on the days when the Lisbon treaty has been debated.

Peter Bone: I want to continue the discussion on the lack of available Committee time to consider the Lisbon treaty. I have had the pleasure of attending each Committee sitting. It has not been too tiring, because most sittings have lasted for only one and a half hours. Selected groups of amendments are clearly not being reachedwe only ever debate the first group selected. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is keen on protecting the rights of Back Benchers. One thing that would help the House would be if the arrangements for the six allotted hours were changed so that the vast bulk of the time was spent in Committee, rather than discussing a motion. The Government have agreed to be flexible on the matter. Will she examine it and publish the timetable for next week, setting out how the split between the motion and the Committee is to be delivered?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is rightwe promised to be flexible, and we have been. We look ahead every week to consider the appropriate balance, taking into account the level of interest and the number of amendments tabled.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on the national health service's approach to group B streptococcal infections in newborn babies? Three out of 10 pregnant women carry the GBS bacterium, which is the most common cause of life-threatening infections in newborn babies, affecting 700 babies a year, 75 of whom die as a result. The NHS does not routinely screen for the condition, but if it did, 80 per cent. of the infections could be treated.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that infant and maternal health has improved in the past 10 years because of this Labour Government's trebling of spend on the NHS. I am sure that he can write to the Department of Health about the detailed points that he raised.

HMP Woodhill

Jacqui Smith: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. As the House will recall, in his statement on 4 February 2008, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary announced that he and I had jointly agreed to ask the chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, to conduct an inquiry to
	investigate the circumstances relating to the visits to Babar Ahmad at HMP Woodhill by Sadiq Khan MP in May 2005 and June 2006, to establish whether the visits were subject to any form of surveillance and if so by whose authority and with whose knowledge, and to report his findings to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and...the Justice Secretary.[ Official Report, 4 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 661.]
	Sir Christopher has completed his inquiry and submitted his report, and I should like to thank him for his work and for the speed and efficiency with which he carried it out. Today, I am laying his report before the House; copies are available in the Vote Office.
	There should be absolutely no doubt about the vital importance of covert surveillance techniques and the contribution they make to the protection of us all from terrorism and other serious crime. Covert surveillance is an essential tool for the police and security and intelligence agencies, and the ability to make use of it must be preserved. It is, however, right that its use is carefully regulated. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 mandates the form of authorisation and inspection for a range of investigatory powers, including two distinct types of surveillance: intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance.
	Intrusive surveillance is defined as the covert acquisition of information on a residential premise or in a private vehicle. It requires the authorisation of a Secretary of State, or of a chief constable or equivalent, together with the approval of a surveillance commissioner. Directed surveillance is any other covert surveillance that does not constitute intrusive surveillance. Directed surveillance can be approved by senior officers in the police, but does not require, in any circumstances, authorisation by a Secretary of State.
	The House will be aware that the 2000 Act also covers the interception of communications. That is a power that can only ever be used for limited purposes, and requires in each case the explicit prior authorisation of a Secretary of State. It is to interception, and to other surveillance requiring the approval of a Secretary of State, that the Wilson doctrine applies. Sir Christopher makes it clear that
	the surveillance which I am investigating does not appear to me to be within the Wilson Doctrine, because it does not give rise to interception as defined by the legislation, nor would it require authorisation by the Secretary of State.
	This is in line with the Government's stated position on the doctrine. As the facts set out in Sir Christopher's report make clear, it is not relevant in this case.
	Let there be no doubt: all forms of covert surveillance are subject to a strict and rigorous statutory regime for authorisations; are conducted in accordance with the guidance set out in the statutory codes of practice; and are overseen by the various independent commissionersnormally recently retired members of the senior judiciaryestablished under the Act to ensure that those using the powers do so in compliance with the law and to the highest standards of integrity. There is an independent tribunalthe Investigatory Powers Tribunalestablished to investigate and rule on any complaints.
	I turn now to the details of Sir Christopher's findings. As he reports, Babar Ahmad was arrested on an extradition warrant on 5 August 2004 and the following day remanded to HM Prison Woodhill. Sir Christopher found that warrants for intrusive surveillance for closed non-legal visits and for directed surveillance for open non-legal visits to Babar Ahmad were properly and correctly authorised in August and September 2004. The first intrusive surveillance authorisation was cancelled in December 2004. The second and relevant directed surveillance authorisation lasted until December 2006.
	Sir Christopher has studied all the documentation on this authorisation and its reviews and renewals. He says of this that
	it suffices to say that the documentation shows that correct procedures were followed in accordance with the legislation and Codes of Practice were followed and proper considerations addressed.
	Sir Christopher records that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting visited Babar Ahmad in prison on three occasions, in October 2004, in May 2005 and in June 2006. On the first occasion, before my hon. Friend was elected to this House, he visited as a solicitor, and Sir Christopher finds that his visit was not monitored in any way. My hon. Friend's later two visits were as an approved visitor under the approved visitors scheme for category A prisoners. He made an application to be put on that scheme as a friend, and before his election to this House. However, Sir Christopher notes that after his election,
	he remained listed in the prison records as a friend.
	The two visits that occurred after my hon. Friend had become an MP were monitored by surveillance. It is absolutely clear from Sir Christopher's report that my hon. Friend was not the target of that surveillance.
	Sir Christopher finds that none of the senior officers responsible for authorising the surveillance knew at the time that the Sadiq Khan listed as a friend was a Member of Parliament. He finds that
	the fact that he is a Member of Parliament first became known to
	those officers
	as a result of press reports since mid-December 2007.
	He concludes however that
	two junior officers who applied for or reviewed authorisation and three who were directly involved in the monitoring knew that Mr Khan was a Member of Parliament, but they had no reason to regard this as significant.
	As I have just said, Sir Christopher concludes that the authorisations were in line with the legislation and codes of practice. In summary, Sir Christopher concludes:
	The conversations between Mr Khan and Babar Ahmad on 21 May 2005 and 24 June 2006 were monitored. The monitoring was carried out lawfully under the legislation. It was properly authorised and fully documented.
	There have been some concerns raised about the extent of surveillance in prisons. Sir Christopher comments on these. He notes that
	it is difficult and commonly impossible to prove a negative, but detailed enquiries on my behalf show no trace in recent years in prison records or anywhere else of any person known to be a Member of Parliament having been monitored during a prison visit.
	There have also been claims made about surveillance of legally privileged conversations between prisoners and solicitors. In his statement on 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice said in respect of conversations between prisoners and their legal advisers:
	Those are all subject to explicit safeguards which generally prohibit such interception or surveillance.[ Official Report, 4 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 661.]
	The statutory codes of practice governing this make it clear that
	In general, an application for surveillance which is likely to result in the acquisition of legally privileged information should only be made in exceptional and compelling circumstances.
	It is, though, important to note that the legislation does not absolutely forbid the monitoring of such conversations. Sir Christopher says on this point:
	I understand from further enquiries which I have made that, since 2005 at least, there have been no authorities for directed surveillance of legal visits in prisons in England and Wales to prisoners in custody in relation to terrorist or other criminal matters.
	I have asked the police service about the matter, and have been assured that that is in fact the case. Sir Christopher goes on to say:
	I know nothing to suggest that any unauthorised directed surveillance has taken place in relation to legal visits to such prisoners during the period to which my investigation relates.
	I hope that that deals clearly and fully with the concerns raised. If any hon. Member, or any member of the public, has a specific complaint to make, the proper thing to do is to refer it to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which this Government established for precisely that purpose.
	I referred earlier to the Wilson doctrine. Although that does not apply in this case, Sir Christopher does suggest that there is some scope for confusion as to the correct interrelationship between the Wilson doctrine and the legislation. The Government do not propose to amend the Wilson doctrine, but accept that current codes of practice do not fully clarify the extent to which reviewing officers and authorising officers should pay special attention to conversations involving or potentially involving a Member of Parliament. I am therefore announcing today that the Government will review the statutory codes of practice, and in particular that we intend to clarify that, as regards covert surveillance, conversations between Members of Parliament doing their constituency business and their constituents should be considered as confidential information, and treated in the same way as other confidential information, such as conversations between a person and their lawyer or minister of religion. That will more clearly give such conversations additional protection.
	As regards this particular case, Sir Christopher has found that the procedures for surveillance operations of this kind were properly and lawfully applied and that my hon. Friend was not the target of surveillance. Sir Christopher identifies a need to clarify the position with respect to MPs as set out in the code and I agree. The action that I have announced today will ensure that that happens.

Dominic Grieve: May I first apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who is unavoidably absent from the House today? I thank the Home Secretary for an early sight of the statement and, if I may say so, for much of its content. I also wish to thank Sir Christopher Rose for having conducted the review expeditiously. Parts of what he has had to say in his report are undoubtedly reassuring in relation to the correct procedures having been followed in compliance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
	There are, however, some issues in the report that should give the House considerable cause for concern. First, the Home Secretary may agree that it is unfortunate that in relation to the police officer referred to by Sir Christopher Rose as X, but widely known in the public domain as being Mr. Kearney, it was not possible for what he had to say to be tested by Sir Christopher, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations originated from him in the first place. As a result, parts of those allegations have not been fully tested by Sir Christopher, for understandable reasons relating to forthcoming trials. Were it to turn out that Mr. Kearney was right in his assertions that he had made repeated representations about the impropriety of bugging the conversations of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), and that the other police officers were wrong in their assertions, would the Home Secretary agree with me that that would put a different complexion on the nature of the investigation and inquiry?
	Is not the nub of the matterand the principal criticism that can be levied at the policethe fact that junior police officers who were carrying out the monitoring and review of the bugging became aware that the hon. Member for Tooting was an MP but decided that that had no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the intrusive surveillance that was taking place? It may well be that the authorisations made by the senior officers who knew nothing about that fact were perfectly valid in the context of the RIPA categorisation of how to go about bugging. However, I have to say to the Home Secretary that when one looks at the junior officers' lack of response to the realisation that they were dealing with an MP coming on visits, it appears to show a woeful lack of understanding of what RIPA says.
	Under section 28 of RIPA, such authorisations are allowed only in circumstances that involve national security or the prevention of crimethere are other categoriesand one can understand why Babar Ahmad might have been bugged but, at the same time, the decision has to be proportionate. Unless it was suggested that the hon. Member for Tooting was in the course of his visits going to engage in a criminal conversation with Mr. Ahmad or in some conspiracy with him that would seek to undermine the criminal justice system in this country, it ought to have followed logically that those police officers would have been alerted to the fact that surveillance ought not to take place.
	Are not wider issues raised about the extent to which we now have a surveillance society on such a level that a large number of intrusive investigations are being authorised by police officers at a senior level but are being carried out and monitored by police officers at a junior level? The result of that must be to cause anxiety that there will be instances when individuals whose conversations ought not to be monitored, for the very good public policy reasons outlined by the Home Secretary, will be monitored. For those reasons, I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement of a review of the subject. I urge her to widen it to consider more generally the extent to which those areas of surveillance that fall outside the scope of the Secretary of State's warrant, whether they relate to the bugging of an MP's conversation when they visit someone in prison or elsewhere or to legal advisers and their conversations with individuals, should be looked at afresh.
	The public are entitled to reassurance that we have not in fact created a system whereby there are substantial loopholes that allow junior police officers, through ignorance, inadvertence or possibly malice, simply to decide that they want to continue to listen to conversations when all the pointers mean that those conversations should remain confidential and, in some cases, privileged.

Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured response to my statement and to Sir Christopher's report. In relation to the specific points that he raised, Sir Christopher outlines at some length in paragraph 10 the inquiries that he undertook and what he learned about the meetings that the officer he identified as X had with a variety of people, as well as about the opportunities that he had during the course of those meetings. At the end of paragraph 10, Sir Christopher explains why it was appropriate to choose not to interview X further.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the expectation that people might have had about the way the monitoring of a conversation that, as Sir Christopher identified, clearly involved a Member of Parliament on constituency business would be treated. As I said in my statement, the current codes and law make it clear that those police officers did not act outside the current codes and the law. However, it is precisely in order to ensure that there is clear guidance about the way in which an MP's conversations with a constituent should be treated that I propose the changes to the codes that I outlined in my statement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that needs clarification, and that is what we will provide.
	I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was making this point, but I want to reiterate clearly for the benefit of the House and the record the fact that there is absolutely no suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting was the target of the surveillance or that there was any suspicion at all that my hon. Friend should have been the target of the surveillance. The report makes it absolutely clear, for example, that reports of the monitoring were filed and that it was decided to take no further action. My hon. Friend was not the target, and nor should there be any suggestion that any cloud rests over him. Sir Christopher Rose is absolutely clear on that point, and we should all be clear about it, too.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, for the speed with which the Government set up the inquiry and for the conclusions that have been put before the House, which, of course, I accept. I welcome the review that she proposes. Will she give us a timetable for when that review will be completed and tell us who will conduct it? On the subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), will she confirm that the report makes it very clear that when he was visited on 8 March 2005 by the pre-assessment police officer he was affable, forthcoming and fully co-operative and that all the visits he made subsequent to that were as a Member of Parliament? Will he be getting a copy of either the tapes or the transcripts?

Jacqui Smith: On my right hon. Friend's first point, I am proposing not a review but action to amend the codes. That amendment will require detailed consultation with the relevant public authorities and, of course, it will also require public consultation and the opportunity for debate in this House. I intend that all that work will be completed within this calendar year.
	On my right hon. Friend's point about our hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, it might help my right hon. Friend if I read from paragraph 22 of Sir Christopher Rose's report, which concerns the visit that was made by a detective constable from the Metropolitan police special branch to complete an inquiry questionnaire for the benefit of the prison and a report for the police at the point at which my hon. Friend was applying to become an approved visitor, before he was a Member of Parliament. It states:
	It is apparent from these documents that Mr Khan told the officer that he had given up his full-time job as a human rights lawyer with his own company to become a prospective Labour Parliamentary candidate for Tooting.
	It goes on to state:
	The officer commented in his report that Mr Khan was very affable and forthcoming.
	I think that that makes it clear that my hon. Friend fulfilled his responsibilities.

Tom Brake: I, too, start by thanking the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement. Sir Christopher Rose's remit was very limited:
	To investigate the circumstances relating to the visits to Babar Ahmad.
	He does, however, make comments on a wider range of points and I would like to touch on them briefly first.
	First, on the Wilson doctrine, I acknowledge what the Secretary of State said about its not applying in this case, but I welcome the fact that the codes of practice will be reviewed. Clearly, we need that clarification as the chief surveillance commissioner has made it clear that in his view it is unsustainable in its present form.
	The report has been turned around extremely rapidly, within only a couple of weeks, yet during that time Sir Christopher managed to assess that routine bugging has not taken place. Some Members will find it astonishing to have achieved that within those time scales, so I hope that the Home Secretary will consider, as the Law Society suggested, that it may be appropriate to hold an inquiry into whether much larger scale bugging is indeed taking place.
	On the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), and who knew what and when, there is useful clarification. The Home Secretary has said on a number of occasions that the hon. Gentleman was not the target of surveillance, but Sir Christopher Rose's report says that junior officers were aware that Mr. Babar Ahmad's prison friend was a Member of Parliament, so could the Home Secretary confirm whether additional guidance will be given to officers in that respect and how that guidance, once implemented, will be monitored?
	The astonishingly rapid turnaround of the report on the bugging of conversations between the hon. Member for Tooting and Mr. Ahmad addresses some of the concerns raised by the incident but leaves up in the air the whole question of whether we are moving towards an ever more intrusive surveillance society in which nothing is private and everything is analysed, recorded, logged and stored. That is a question the Liberal Democrats will pursue relentlessly.

Jacqui Smith: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point, it is precisely because I feel that the guidance, and in fact the statutory codes of practice, relating to RIPA should clarify the position with respect to those who review and monitor and authorise any conversations that might involve a constituency MP on constituency business that I have announced and propose today that we should amend the codes.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first point, about the Wilson doctrine, he referred to the view of the then interception of communications commissioner that there was potentially no longer a place for the doctrine. That point was fully responded to in a written ministerial statement on 30 March 2006 by the previous Prime Minister, who concluded at that time that the Wilson doctrine should be maintained. That position was subsequently confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	Sometimes, I feel we cannot win. I have read the transcript of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, when Members urged speed on him, me and Sir Christopher Rose. Sir Christopher Rose carried out the inquiry speedily and effectively. In fact, he has slightly broadened the terms of reference in order precisely to take in the concerns about legal privilege that have been outlined and, as I have noted today, his report was clear. He said:
	I know nothing to suggest that any unauthorised directed surveillance has taken place in relation to legal visits to such prisoners during the period to which my investigation relates.
	Paragraph 26 also states:
	Although this is not within my Terms of Reference, I understand from further enquiries which I have made that, since 2005 at least, there have been no authorities for directed surveillance of legal visits in prisons in England and Wales to prisoners in custody in relation to terrorist or other criminal matters.
	I reiterate what I said in my statement: the Government set up the Investigatory Powers Tribunal precisely to investigate concerns about the way investigatory powers were being used, and I recommend any Member or member of the public with concerns about the use of those powers to refer them to the tribunal.

Gisela Stuart: I commend the Home Secretary for a speedy response to the case and an appropriate and measured reply. I listened carefully to what she said about the Wilson doctrine, but of course it was established at a time when we did not have directly elected Members of the European Parliament or of the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly. When we review the issue, will my right hon. Friend clarify whether any of those privileges apply to those office holders?

Jacqui Smith: It has subsequently been confirmed that the Wilson doctrine does not apply to those office holders. However, I confirm that it is my intention that the work to extend the scope of the definition of confidential information in the codes of practice will explicitly include constituency work by MPs, and that it will extend to Members of the European Parliament and of the Welsh devolved Administration. Before anybody asks, extension of that kind in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be a matter for their devolved Administrations to take forward in parallel.

Andrew Selous: My constituent, the retired detective referred to as X, is surprised that Sir Christopher Rose did not ask him to co-operate. He, above all, wants a fair trial; he offered his co-operation and does not know why it was not sought. Both he and the journalist with whom he is charged with aiding and abetting an offence in public office are concerned for their safety and, because of the range of activities at Woodhill prison of which they are aware, they are also concerned that there may be an attempt to silence them. Will the Home Secretary comment on that aspect?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that I shall not comment in detail on an ongoing court case. Sir Christopher Rose's report, as I have already pointed out, makes clear in paragraph 10 the process he undertook with respect to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

Phyllis Starkey: When the issue was first raised in the House, I expressed my concern, as the MP representing Woodhill and many of the staff who work there, about the uncertainty that might be caused if the inquiry dragged on, so I am extremely pleased that Sir Christopher Rose has so effectively and thoroughly completed the inquiry in a short time. I urge the Home Secretary to resist strenuously any spurious Mohammed al-Fayed-type allegations that may cause the case to be dragged out endlessly by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Will she clarify whether the new guidelines will refer to prison staff as well as police officers and others and, if so, will she make sure that they are as clear as possible so that prison staff can concentrate on their important job of protecting us all and are not worried by unclear guidelines about what they may or may not do?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the statutory code of practice that will relate to covert surveillance will include all those involved in the review, monitoring or authorisation of covert surveillance. I agree that it is important that the review was carried out quickly, not least for those who are clearly working hard in Her Majesty's Prison Woodhill.

Alan Beith: Does the Home Secretary agree that the Wilson doctrine is often misunderstood as though it meant that a Member of Parliament is totally immune from the interception of communications even if engaged in serious crime or aiding and abetting terrorism? What the doctrine actually means is that such an exceptional interception would require the highest level of authority and would subsequently have to be disclosed to the House of Commons. Is that not a good principle for the protection of constituents and others, and one that should rightly be extended to directed surveillance?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the amendment I propose to the statutory codes of practice with respect to covert surveillance. The law already says, with respect to confidential information, that there is not a blanket prohibition on the monitoring of a conversation that might involve confidential information. As he rightly says, any surveillance would need to be in exceptional and compelling circumstances and would, therefore, need much higher levels of authorisation.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend has given some important and welcome reassurances on the surveillance of legally privileged conversations, but there have been widespread media speculations about the recording of lawyers' conversations, and attempts to found those speculations have been heard in the House today. Will she confirm that it is not the case that such conversations are recorded?

Jacqui Smith: As I said in my statement, in paragraph 26 of his report, Sir Christopher Rose finds clearly from his further inquiries that
	there have been no authorities for directed surveillance of legal visits in prisons in England and Wales.
	Furthermore, he says,
	I know nothing to suggest that any unauthorised directed surveillance has taken place in relation to legal visits.
	It is clearly important that strong regulation is in place in both the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the codes of practice. I reiterate that rather than talking to newspapers, it is probably more useful for people with concerns about such issues to take them up with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which the Government set up precisely in order to ensure confidence about how the powers are used.

Michael Mates: While the Home Secretary is undoubtedly right that the Wilson doctrine was not violated in the case that we are discussing, has it not shown that there is an illogicality in the fact that such an event is not covered by the Wilson doctrine, probably quite inadvertently? As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just said, it is quite clear that MPs should not and must not be immune from any form of surveillance if they are suspected of serious crime and such surveillance is properly warranted. In making the changes to procedure that she has announced, will the Home Secretary make it the case that the Wilson doctrine will apply to surveillance on Members of Parliament by the police rather than the security services, so that eventually, at a time when national security allows, it can be reported to the House?

Jacqui Smith: It is interesting that hon. Members have suggested at points in the past that the Wilson doctrine is limited in its application. It nevertheless remains in place, and its scope is as I described in my statement. Arguably, what I am proposing in terms of statutory codes of practice open to public debate and scrutiny in Parliament will put the issue of covert surveillance on a clear statutory basis, which will provide the sort of clarification for which the right hon. Gentleman asks.

Peter Bone: Before I came to Parliament, I assumed that the Wilson doctrine meant that all Members who took the Oath of office were free from surveillance. That is clearly not the case, although there may be a high hurdle to overcome. Will the Home Secretary tell us how many MPs have suffered surveillance in the past 10 years?

Jacqui Smith: No. I have been clear about how the Wilson doctrine applies and about the statutory code of practice.

Hugh Robertson: During her statement, the Home Secretary said that none of the senior officers responsible for authorising the surveillance knew at the time that the Sadiq Khan listed as a friend was a Member of Parliament. Given the serious nature of the issues involved, including national security, and the fact that being a Member of Parliament is not notoriously a particularly covert occupation, is that not in itself a cause for genuine concern?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman can interpret that however he wants, but Sir Christopher Rose found and is clear that those senior police officers did not know at the point when they authorised the surveillance that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting was a Member of Parliament.

Mark Pritchard: Given that foreign intelligence agencies fall outside the Wilson doctrine and existing and future codes of conduct, will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that during the past 10 years, no British Minister, especially in the Ministry of Defence, has been bugged by a foreign intelligence agencyparticularly the French intelligence agencyin relation to Ministry of Defence procurement contracts?

Jacqui Smith: It is illegal for foreign intelligence agencies to operate in this country.

David Howarth: Whatever the results of the inquiry, and whether or not the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was targeted by the operation, is not the alarming conclusion to draw from the report that under the existing arrangements, it was at least possible for a Member of Parliament to be targeted? In the changes that the Home Secretary is to make to the codes of practice, should it not be a principle that, in law, it should not be possible for the police to use their powers in a political way, to gather information on politicians whom they might consider to be their political opponents?

Jacqui Smith: Clearly that should be unacceptable, but there is no suggestion that that has happened.

Shailesh Vara: Following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), will the Home Secretary be a bit more specific about whether in the past 10 years any other Member of Parliament has been bugged, either because they were the target of the bugging, or because someone else was the target, but they happened to be part of the conversation?

Jacqui Smith: I think that I was very clear that there is no evidence that either the strong regulation that is in place, or the principle of the Wilson doctrine, has been breached.

Terrorist Suspects (Renditions)

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on US rendition operations. On 12 December 2005, in response to a parliamentary question from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), then Foreign Secretary, updated the House on the subject of terrorist suspects and rendition, stating:
	Careful research by officials has been unable to identify any occasion since 11 September 2001, or earlier in the Bush administration, when we received a request for permission by the United States...for a rendition through UK territory or airspace, nor are we otherwise aware of such a case.[ Official Report, 12 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1652W.]
	That was supplemented by two further statements in January 2006 and a letter of 6 February 2006 to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
	In March 2007, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave an assurance to the Intelligence and Security Committee that he was satisfied that the US had at no time since 9/11 rendered an individual through the UK or through our overseas territories. In its report on rendition of 28 June 2007, the ISC said:
	We are satisfied that there is no evidence that US rendition flights have used UK airspace (except the two cases in 1998 referred to earlier in this Report) and that there is no evidence of them having landed at UK military airfields.
	The Government welcomed those conclusions in their response to the report in July 2007. Parliamentary answers, interviews and letters followed that evidence. I am very sorry indeed to have to report to the House the need to correct those and other statements on the subject, on the basis of new information passed to officials on 15 February 2008 by the US Government.
	Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, recent US investigations have now revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when that had in fact occurred. An error in the earlier US records search meant that those cases did not come to light. In both cases, a US plane with a single detainee on board refuelled at the US facility in Diego Garcia. The detainees did not leave the plane, and the US Government have assured us that no US detainees have ever been held on Diego Garcia. US investigations show no record of any other rendition through Diego Garcia or any other overseas territory, or through the UK itself, since then.
	Yesterday, US and UK legal teams discussed the issue, and I spoke with Secretary Rice. We both agree that the mistakes made in those two cases are not acceptable, and she shares my deep regret that the information has only just come to light. She emphasised to me that the US Government came to us with the information quickly after they discovered it.
	The House and the Government will share deep disappointment at the news, and about its late emergence. That disappointment is shared by our US allies. They recognise the absolute imperative for the British Government to provide accurate information to Parliament. I reaffirm the Government's commitment to that imperative today. We fully accept that the United States gave its earlier assurances in good faith. We accepted those assurances, and indeed referred to them publicly, also in good faith.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I have asked my officials to compile a list of all the flights where we have been alerted to concerns regarding rendition through the UK or our overseas territories. Once it is ready we will be sending the list to the US and seeking their specific assurance that none of those flights was used for rendition purposes.
	Our counter-terrorism relationship with the United States is vital to UK security. I am absolutely clear that there must and will continue to be the strongest possible intelligence and counter-terrorism relationship with the US, consistent with UK law and our international obligations. As part of our close co-operation, there has long been a regular exchange with the US authorities, in which we have set out, first, that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including overseas territories; secondly, that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and thirdly, how we understand our obligations under the UN convention against torture. Secretary Rice has underlined to me the firm US understanding that there will be no rendition through the UK, UK airspace or overseas territories without express British Government permission.
	The House will want to know what has become of the two individuals in question. There is a limit to what I can say, but I can tell the House the following. The US Government have told us that neither of the men was a British national or a British resident. One is currently in Guantanamo Bay. The other has been released. The House will know that the British Government's long-standing position is that the detention facility at Guantanamo should be closed.
	My officials and their US counterparts continue to work through all the details and implications of this information. We will keep procedures under review to ensure that they meet the standards that we have set, and I will, of course, keep the House updated.

William Hague: At the outset, may I say that by coming to the House to inform us of the new information quickly after it came to light, the Foreign Secretary has done the right thing, but he will recognise that the information will cause widespread concern, given the categoric nature of the assurances previously given by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then Foreign Secretary, and by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blairassurances which we entirely accept were given in good faith, although they have turned out to be false.
	More worrying still, the new information means that very specific assurances about the use of the facilities at Diego Garcia, although given in good faith, have also turned out to be false. The Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, stated in a written answer on 18 July last year:
	The US authorities have repeatedly given us assurances that no terrorist suspects have been, or are being, held at Diego Garcia, or at any time have passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or airspace.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. WA25.]
	The information gives rise to a number of questions. Can the Foreign Secretary say more about how and why the information has suddenly come to light now? How confident is he that further such cases will not come to light? How exhaustive, so far as he knows, has the checking of records by the United States now been? Can he say any more about exactly how the omissionthe omission both to ask for permission in the first place and to report afterwardsoccurred and whether the United States has made any administrative changes to ensure that any other cases would now come to light?
	The Foreign Secretary said that he would compile a list of all previous flights that have alerted concerns and pursue them with the United States, an action of which we in the Opposition strongly approve, but will he impress on the United States Secretary of State the importance of ensuring that all agencies of the US Government understand the importance of the rules that he has reiterated relating to UK law and practice being respected? Can he also assure the House that if any further concerns about specific cases are raised, he will pursue them with the United States on a continuing and systematic basis, rather than as a one-off exercise?
	The delay in releasing the information and the evident absence of a request in these cases are bound to undermine public trust to some extent in the arrangements that we have with the United States. Is it not important to do everything possible to strengthen the credibility of our arrangements for the future? In particular, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether procedures for the future can be tightened up or reinforced in any way? Has he received any assurances of changes in internal procedures in the US Government so that the British Government can be confident that the American Administration would indeed make a formal request, when appropriate, for use of our airspace and facilities?
	More broadly, whatever the specifics of these cases, their revelation inevitably focuses attention again on the wider issue of how rendition is used. The efforts of the United States, our most important ally, to fight international terror are essential to the security not only of America, but of Britain and many other nations. But allegations that rendition has led to the torture of terrorist suspects has been used to undermine the moral standing of the US and its allies.
	If such torture has occurred, it is fundamentally wrong. The Government have taken the view, which we share, that rendition leading to torture is unacceptable, and that they would not approve any instance of rendition that breaches our obligation under the UN convention against torture. Would not the position of the United States and all its allies be strengthened if it, the United States, were to adopt a definition of torture that corresponds more closely to international norms, and if it adopted a higher threshold for rendition to third countries than satisfying itself that it believes that the transferred suspect will not be tortured? Is this not something that the Government should now advocate as America's candid friend?
	Such differences of practice and definition are at the root of international concern. Would not their satisfactory resolution mean that rather than permanent suspicion and occasional revelations, real trust might be restored for the future?

David Miliband: I quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of widespread concern. That was reflected in my statement.
	The review that was undertaken by the United States authorities reflects the significant concerns that have been expressed by the Government in the House and more widely in this country. It is a reflection of those concerns that the review took place and brought the case to light. Obviously, the checking of the records in 2002-03 and beyond did not reveal the case. I referred to an administrative error in the work that went into those earlier reviews and I do not have further information about the nature of that error.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about follow-up and how the United States authorities would take matters forward. I discussed with Condoleezza Rice yesterday the importance of the issue and how we follow it through. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks at the end of his response about the importance of confidence existing in the relationship and the nature of the assurances that we give to each other are critical to both the United States and the UK. The work that our officials will be doing with the US officials, which I referred to in my statement, is intended precisely to follow through on those concerns, but I wanted to make a statement to the House even though the officials have not yet had the chance to go to the United States to take forward those talks.
	The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between the one-off trawl that we will do for the existing cases of particular flights about which concerns have been expressed and which will be raised with the US authorities, and what he called the continuing and systematic work to ensure that the procedures that have been established are upheld. Of course we will look seriously at any serious concerns that are raised with us, and I am sure the United States will want us to do the same as well.
	In respect of the public trust that he spoke about, the right hon. Gentleman will know from the earlier correspondence to which I referred that the practice was established in the 1990s for permission to be sought, and in 1998 it was sought in four cases, in two of which rendition occurred and in two of which it did not. There was also a preliminary inquiry, which was referred to in the letter that was sent to him on 6 February 2006 about the 2004 case. I associate myself entirely with his view that rendition to torture would be quite wrong and is something that the UK Government should never participate in and certainly not instigate.
	I can tell the House that in this case we have been told that the two individuals involved were not taken to a secret detention facility or subject to water-boarding or other similar forms of interrogation. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of advocating an international standard of definition, and that is what we do through our signature of international conventions on torture and through our adherence to our definition of it. We will certainly continue to do that.

Mike Gapes: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. However, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has been pressing his two predecessors on these matters for several years, I feel that I must place on the record the fact that when, on 29 April 2007, we published our human rights annual report, in which we raised continuing concerns about this matter, we received the following Government response:
	We are clear that the US would not render anyone through UK airspace (including the Overseas Territories) without our permission.
	That statement was clearly inaccurate. In the current situation, and on the basis of the information that we now know, will the Foreign Secretary formally today withdraw that statement? I hope that we as a House will make clear that the fact that the United States Bush Administration have clearly misled or lied to our Government has resulted in our Government inadvertently misleading a Select Committee of this House and Members of this House. The United States Administration have to bear in mind the fact that that is a most serious matter and that we do not wish to see it repeated.

David Miliband: The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, of course, absolutely right that this is a most serious matter. I hope that he will appreciate that the whole point of my statement is to recognise that in parliamentary questions and a range of interviews, statements and letters, information that has turned out to be incorrect was given.
	In respect of the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I should say that I believe what I said in my statement: the information and assurances were given to us in good faith by the United States authorities. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important that we work very hard to ensure that procedures are in place to ensure that this does not happen again.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement today and for his courtesy in personally briefing me this morning. Although we are grateful that the information has now been revealed, I hope that he will agree that the admission vindicates the concerns that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have had for several yearsand in particular the determined efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in continually raising these matters.
	Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Tony Blair's previous dismissal of our calls for an inquiry into rendition as absurd now itself looks absurd? Is it not time for an independent inquiry into any UK involvement in renditions, extraordinary or not, and into what role the British territory of Diego Garcia has played in the US rendition programme? Can he absolutely confirm that in this case no one anywhere in the British Government gave permission for the renditions?
	On rendition via Diego Garcia, has the Foreign Secretary asked the US authorities about allegations that US detainees have been held on ships serviced from Diego Garcia and possibly stationed within UK territorial waters? Many commentators will find it hard to believe that there have been so few renditions via British territory. The Foreign Secretary's officials are compiling a list of other flights alleged to have involved renditionwill he publish that list so that it can be scrutinised? Will he be prepared to accept additions to that list from responsible and informed parties such as Amnesty International, Reprieve and Human Rights Watch?
	The Foreign Secretary knows that one of my constituents, Bisher al-Rawi, was the subject of proven rendition and torture by the US authorities, although he has now been released from Guantanamo Bay after nearly five years without charge. The Foreign Secretary will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee found that the US had shown a complete lack of regard for British concerns by ignoring the prohibition on action being taken as a result of shared intelligence in my constituent's case. Has he obtained assurances that in no other case has shared intelligence been so abused, and has he obtained an apology for Mr. al-Rawi?
	Rendition is state-sponsored abduction and water-boarding is torture. We must not only be assured that Britain has not been used to facilitate such practices, but we must tell our friends in the United States that we deplore such practices. Will the UK Government now condemn the practice of extraordinary rendition in all cases? Until the US gives it up and closes Guantanamo Bay and the secret detention centres that President Bush admits it still has, we must make it clear that the US is not only infringing international law, but potentially undermining the fight against international terrorism.

David Miliband: First, I want to reiterate something that I think was clear in my statement, but with which I am happy to associate myself again. The questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and the all-party parliamentary group are precisely the sort of parliamentary interrogation and questioning that is wholly appropriate. It was as a result, in part, of those questions that such extensive trawling was done in 2005 and 2006 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
	A very full inquiry was done into rendition by the ISC; the hon. Gentleman cited it himself. I believe that it went into the issues in great detail. The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about the territorial waters around Diego Garcia and I can confirm that they are part of the discussions that happen in the annual talks with the United States about Diego Garcia, and that the commitments that it has made include them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would publish a list of the cases that we forward to the United States. I am happy to do that. The cases will have been put into the public domain in a range of places anyway by some of the organisations, including Amnesty International, that he mentioned. However, at the appropriate time I will be happy to find a way to put them into the public domain in a way that ensures that they are accessiblenot least because that will prevent people from writing to ask us to investigate cases that are already being investigated. In respect of extraordinary rendition, I do not think that I could have been clearer in my statement. I said that the UK will in no way contribute to, instigate or condone the process of extraordinary rendition or rendition to torture of any kind.
	I turn to my final point. The hon. Gentleman talked about our friends in the United States, but I was sorry that he also said that it was hard to believe that there had not been other cases. I say to him in all candour that if he likes, he can run a foreign policy on the basis that it is hard to believe the commitments of our most serious and long-standing ally. However, I do not believe that that is the right basis on which to run a foreign policy. Of course we should ask questions of our most trusted ally; of course it should engage with us and have clear procedures. However, I do not think that we can conduct a foreign policy on the basis of disbelief or of a presumption of deceit, which I think lay behind some of what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that he will recognise that a presumption of deceit is not an adequate basis on which to conduct our relations.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to his own constituent and I understand the work that he has rightly done on that case as a constituency MP. However, having looked at the issue this morning, the hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree with me that the ISC went through it in some detail and found no evidence that the UK had been complicit in the rendition to Guantanamo Bay.

Andrew Dismore: Senator Dick Marty, the Council of Europe rapporteur on rendition, described a global spider's web of CIA detentions and renditions; clearly, we have been unwittingly drawn into that. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the evidence that the Government gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into UK compliance with the UN convention against torture, to check its accuracy? Will he also look again at the recommendations that we made about renditionin particular that any civil aircraft against which there are credible allegations of involvement should be required to land to be checked if it is going to a country known to practise torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, and that no state aircraft suspected of involvement in extraordinary rendition should be permitted to transit UK airspace without permission being granted for UK authorities to search it?

David Miliband: I will certainly look at the report to which my hon. Friend refers. He referred to a spider's web of secret detention. It is important to repeat that we have been told by the United States that neither of the two people involved in this case were involved in secret detention centres, nor were they subject to water-boarding or other similar forms of torture. President Bush said, I think in 2005, that no one was being kept in any secret detention centre as of 2005. However, I will certainly look at the important issues that my hon. Friend raises, because for reasons of substance and of the symbolism to which the spokesmen for the Opposition parties referred, it is very important that the highest standards are met.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to make a statement.
	May I take up with the Foreign Secretary the question of belief? In December 2005, I believed his predecessor, and his predecessor believed the American Government, but both of us have been proved wrong. Is it any wonder, then, that there is some scepticism about the extent to which we can believe information that is now being put before us? The issue here is not met by expressions of disappointment. The truth is that this is a gross embarrassment for the British Government, in spite of their good faith, involving as it does a breach of our moral obligations and possibly of our legal responsibilities as well, which the Foreign Secretary hinted at in his statement when he referred to the fact that there have been consultations between legal teams of the United Kingdom and the United States.
	In the further investigation that is to take place, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that particular attention is paid to the airports at Stornoway, Campbeltown and Prestwick, because of their convenience for transatlantic refuelling?
	Does not all this reveal that as far as Diego Garcia is concerned, we have absolutely no effective control over what happens there? For how long is that sustainable? If the roles were reversed, is it conceivable that the American Government, or indeed the American Congress, would tolerate such a set of circumstances?

David Miliband: As I said earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pursued this case with complete public-spiritedness and seriousness of purpose, and I entirely recognise that. If there are other individual cases that he believes that we should be investigating, of course they will be added to the list. I should say to him that this information has come to light as a result of an American investigation that was brought to us. That shows that the American Government recognise that it is as much in their interest as it is in ours that accuracy is maintained in these areas. That is important, without in any way excusing the mistakesI used that word in my statementthat have been made.
	It is important that the agreements that we have with the United States in respect of Diego Garcia have the force of treaty. The letters of 1966 and 1976 have the force of treaty, and they are legally binding agreements. I hope that on due consideration the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reflect on how to improve those proceduresperhaps during the inquiry that the Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting, which he has now joinedbut I hope that he will agree that they are set down with statutory force under the current system.

Gerald Kaufman: May I commend my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he has come before the House, for the frankness with which he has detailed the situation that he has found, and for upholding in the strongest terms this Government's adherence to international standards on human rights? May I put it to him that the best way of avoiding any further episodes of this kind, in which our Government are a totally innocent party, will be for the United States to end rendition flights altogether, for it to end the disgusting practice of water-boarding, which was recently graphically described in an article in  The New Yorker and which my right hon. Friend has rightly repudiated, and, as my right hon. Friend recommended, for it to close totally the illegal facility at Guantanamo Bay?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The values that we talk about, which are the highest values of human rights and respect for the rule of law, need to be adhered to in every respect, and it is very important that they are seen to be adhered to. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to embarrassment in respect of disclosure. I think that it is a very important part of our system that there is a far greater embarrassment in trying to cover anything like this up. It is right that the American Government came to us quickly as a result of discovering this, and absolutely right that we are clear that clearly upholding our commitment to our own Parliament and to the values to which we refer is central to our case.

John Stanley: As the Foreign Secretary is aware, the British Government have entered into memorandums of understanding with the Government of Iraq and the Government of Afghanistan with regard to the transfer of detainees. Will he tell the House whether, since those memorandums have been entered into, there have been any transfers of persons detained by British forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq by third parties to Guantanamo Bay?

David Miliband: I want to go into the details of that and write to the hon. Gentleman with a clear answer. What I can say to him absolutely clearly is that in no way would we be complicit in rendering people to torture. That is something that I have made clear, but I will write to him with the details in respect of his very specific question.

Lynda Waltho: What is so special about a relationship where one of the partners appears to abuse trust, truth and respect?

David Miliband: I understand the anger that is felt by my hon. Friend about this issue and no doubt about the issues that will be raised with her by her constituents. I hope that she could say that the breach that has occurred in respect of this issue is not the defining element of our relationship with the United States; that is why I picked up on what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I do not believe that it is a relationship based on deceit; I believe that it is a relationship based on shared values and shared commitments. I hope that the fact that an organisation such as the ISC investigated, on behalf of this House, this particular issue of rendition and said that the relationship with the United States had saved livesBritish liveswill enable my hon. Friend to reflect that it is possible to talk about a relationship that has enduring value for the lives and livelihoods of the citizens of this country. It is very important that we explain that side of the relationship as well.

Michael Mates: While accepting the good faith of the Government in saying what they said, which has turned out to be wrong, this is at least the second occasion in this whole rendition saga when we have had cause to complain very seriously about American actions. This may have been due to inefficiency or inadvertency. The breaking of the caveat in the case of those people who were rendered from Gambia to Guantanamo Bay was not inadvertent or due to bad administrationit was a deliberate failure to observe caveats that have been observed between our two countries. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reinforce the necessity for absolute openness and honesty with our closest ally.
	Diego Garcia is British territory, as we know. There is an RAF presence at Diego Garciain fact, it is called RAF Diego Garcia. In reviewing these arrangements, will the Foreign Secretary make certain that the people there are aware of the flights that go in and out, so that this sort of thing cannot happen without at least British personnel on the ground knowing about landings on British territory?

David Miliband: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the ISC report and the conclusions that were come to. The implication in his questionthat these arrangements need to be understood throughout the British system and the American systemis an important one. One of the recommendations of the ISC inquiry into rendition was that there was a clear point of contact in the British Government for leadership on this issue. There were a range of other recommendations to ensure that that was properly understood, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they are being followed up properly within Government, led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I can also assure him that in my discussion with Secretary Rice yesterday there was no room for misunderstanding on either side about the seriousness of this issue and about the determination on both our parts to ensure that there is full adherence to the commitment to seek permission for any flight like this. That is the founding basis in respect of the rendition issue. In respect of records and other issues, such as civilian and military flights in Diego Garcia, that is a slightly separate matter, but what must be clear is that there is no evidence that there has been any rendition through UK airspace, UK territory or UK overseas territory since 2002, and that must continue to be adhered to.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have other important business to protect. I will try to call a number of other hon. Members. I would appreciate short questions and short answers. I shall not be calling hon. Members who were not here at the commencement of the statement.

David Winnick: However much international terrorism remains a constant danger, and however much the United States is a close ally, have we not a responsibility to say that so much of its practices in dealing with terrorismthe torture, and the manner in which its reputation has been so tarnished, for reasons that have been mentioned alreadyis unacceptable? Should we not make it quite clear to the United States, as an ally, that such practices are totally unacceptable, and are rejected by this House?

David Miliband: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in light of your injunction to be short, I say that, yes, we should always be clear about our own positions, and that is what I shall seek to do.

Julian Lewis: Although it is clear that this revelation has been volunteered by the Americans, and that presumably the Foreign Secretary would not be making this statement if they had not come forward in an honest way, will he take the opportunity to remind our American allies of Britain's long record of not using torture in interrogations, even when the very survival of our country was at stake, as in the second world war? Will he remind them that Sir Robert Thompson, the leading counter-insurgency specialist, wrote:
	There is a very strong temptation...for government forces to act outside the law...Not only is this morally wrong, but, over a period, it will create more practical difficulties for a government than it solves.
	This would not be such an issue if it abandoned such practice.

David Miliband: That is a helpful quotation, which I have not heard before. Obviously, I understand the spirit behind it. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that there is a live debate in the United States about this very issue, and about the right way to prosecute the struggle against global terrorism.

Ian Cawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House so quickly and for giving us a statement with his characteristic clarity and honesty. Hon. Members have every confidence in his commitment to human rights, but can he give an assurance to the House that the US Government understand our deep disappointment with their actions, and that he is confident that there will be no repetition of their failure in the future?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. I believe that there is a determination on the part of Secretary Rice and her colleagues, as evidenced by the way in which they have come forward in this case, and by the way in which they engaged with the discussions we had yesterday both at the official and the political level, to get to the bottom of these issues and make sure that they are brought into the public domain in a timely way. I can certainly give my hon. Friend my commitment that I will continue to set out the British case without fear or favour.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Foreign Secretary said that there was a feeling of great disappointment in the House. I would say that it is alarm. Many right hon. and hon. Members raised these points at the time, based on evidence in the press and authoritative comment by non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty. Should not the Government have made further inquiries at the time?
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to a list of all the flights where we have been alerted to concerns regarding rendition; who alerted the Government about those, and when did that happen? Finally, the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to distance himself from rendition of all kinds. Why, then, allow permission to be sought for it to happen?

David Miliband: In respect of the hon. Gentleman's last point, the ISC addressed that issue in a way that the Government recognised and agreed with, which is that so-called extraordinary rendition to torture is always wrongit is illegal and immoralbut it is not the case that all rendition is, by definition, illegal. I referred earlier to the 1998 cases, two of which were accepted and two of which were refused. They were renditions to the US system, and there were full legal rights for the accused in those cases, although two were refused.
	The hon. Gentleman's second question was about who alerted us. It is precisely the organisations and others, including hon. Members, who have written to us. My final point refers to his first one, which is the extent to which the UK Government took up the questions that were addressed. That is a very important point. I can absolutely assure him that, not just in annual meetings with the American Government, but at ministerial and official level, that topic was regularly raisedthat is why I used that phrase in my statement. There was a regular seeking of the assurances, precisely in order to assure ourselves that we could confirm to the House that there was no evidence of the type being suggested. The trawls done by the US Government at this time did not produce the evidence, deeply regrettably, but now they have. I totally understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that we follow through all the allegations that have been made, and I am determined to do so.

Louise Ellman: Could the Foreign Secretary give any further information about how the truth of this situation came to light?

David Miliband: Exactly as I said in my statement, which is that the United States authorities, recognising the degree of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary concern about the issue, launched their own investigationa further investigation. The evidence came to light relatively recently and they came to us. This is a US investigation and a US volunteering of the evidence.

Sarah Teather: The Foreign Secretary has referred several times to the ISC inquiry, which, as he will be aware, looked at the case of my constituent, Jamil el-Banna, as well as that of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and their illegal rendition from the Gambiathen on to torture and Guantanamo Bay. The Foreign Secretary has admitted today that some of the information used for the wider inquiry by the ISC was incorrectthat is the point of his statement. Does that not underline the need for a full, independent, judicial inquiry into British involvement in rendition?

David Miliband: As the hon. Lady knows, I genuinely respect the way in which she and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) have taken up the cause of their constituents. We have talked about the application that has now been made, in respect of British residents, to bring them back from Guantanamo Bay. I genuinely understand that. But when she talks about British involvement, it is important that we understand that this is a matter of the United States seeking our permission, and there is no evidence of them having done so, other than in these two cases. Actually, they did not seek our permission in these two cases.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that the inquiry she is calling for into British involvement is one that, by definition, is trying to prove a negative, which is a very difficult thing to do. The ISC inquiry was well founded, serious and did get through all the issues. It will be for the ISC and its Chairmansome of the ISC members are hereto decide whether they want to follow that up, and how they may want to do so. I have confidence in that inquiry and I have heard nothing to suggest that anyone should not have confidence in it.

Rob Marris: I welcome the statement, but I am confused. The UK Government rightly condemn extraordinary rendition as illegal kidnapping. It looks to me as if ordinary rendition is also kidnapping, to avoid the scrutiny of extradition proceedings. But the UK Government, particularly in the statement today

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked for short questions, and I have not heard a question yet. I call Mr. Rob Marrisquickly.

Rob Marris: In what way is rendition itself lawful?

David Miliband: The important distinction concerns rendition to torture, which is illegal and immoral in all cases; as the ISC showed, there is a distinction between that and, for example, the 1998 cases, which involved rendition to a justice system. That is an obvious distinction. If my hon. Friend is interested in the legal background to this, I am happy to write to him with some further legal details.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the speed with which he has come to the House, the manner in which he has made his statement, and his agreement to publish the list. Could he go a little further and say when he thinks that that list will be sent to the USA, and when he expects a response?

David Miliband: A very short answer would be no. I am not able to say that, but I obviously recognise the public and parliamentary interest in this issue. We will certainly try to gather the evidence together with due speed, and I am sure that the American authorities will want to address the issue in a similar way.

Richard Younger-Ross: A trust has been breached and the question is how we re-establish it. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to speak to his counterparts in the United States and ask them to carry out an audit of exactly how every detainee arrived in Guantanamo Bay? It is hard to believe that only one went through a British overseas territory.

David Miliband: Certainly the conversation I held with Secretary Rice yesterday revealed determination on both our parts. We went through the hard-to-believe question earlier and I do not want to repeat that. However, the United States recognises the need to move with genuine clarity and transparency on the issues. I certainly want to move forward on that basis.

Point of Order

Maria Miller: The Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), today issued a written statement about ContactPoint, the children's database. The statement suggests fundamental concerns about the security of ContactPoint, uncovered through a report commissioned at the Government's request by Deloitte. It calls into question the likelihood of the database being delivered on time or on budget. The Government also announced that they will withhold the details of the Deloitte report, making scrutiny of its findings all but impossible.
	That is a highly controversial issue. The database deals with the details of 11 million children in the country. A written statement to the House gives no opportunity to question the Government on that important project. What guidance can you give the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure proper scrutiny of the issue by Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Government to decide how they report matters to the House. They have the option of using written or oral statements or informing the House in other ways. The Chair is therefore unable to comment on that. However, the fact that the hon. Lady has placed the matter before the House will be noted and I daresay there may be other opportunities to pursue the matter.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2007-08, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Ninth Repor t) : Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2008, HC 356.]

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
	The purpose of the order is to renew the control order elements of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which automatically lapses after one year unless renewed by order subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. The effect of the order is to maintain the powers set out under the Act until the end of 10 March 2009. That will allow us to continue to use control orders to tackle the threat posed to national security by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.
	I am conscious of the limited time, and I will try to be as quick as I can, but it is important to put the threat that we face in context. As hon. Members know, in the past few years, we have witnessed several appalling attacks on our country. As the director general of the Security Service stated in November last year:
	The number of people...involved in terrorist-related activity in the UK has increased to at least 2,000. And we suspect that there are as many again that we don't yet know of.
	The threat is clearly genuine, serious and unparalleled in our country's history. It is unparalleled because of the suicide dimension, which is new.
	Faced with a threat of that magnitude, it would be irresponsible to say that there was a simple solution. We need a range of responses to reduce the risk of further terrorist attacks. The order should be viewed in that context.
	I freely admit that the balance between human rights and security is paramount and that no party in the House has the monopoly on supporting security or human rights. All hon. Members accept that we all seek that balance. We must ensure that we protect all our fundamental values and civil liberties while defending the most of importantthe right to life.
	Let me make it clear that prosecution isfirst, second and thirdthe Government's preferred approach when dealing with suspected terrorists. Somehow in the past, a view has been put abroad that we cannot be bothered to prosecute so we invented control orders to avoid that route. In 2007 alone, 37 people were convicted of terrorism-related offences in 15 cases.
	However, we are constantly seeking to improve our ability to prosecute suspected terrorists. First, as hon. Members know, we introduced new offences in the Terrorism Act 2006, which have already been used successfully to prosecute those involved in terrorism. Secondly, we propose measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to extend post-charge questioning of suspected terrorists. Thirdly, we have accepted the Chilcot recommendation that we should introduce intercept as evidence, provided that the conditions outlined can be met. However, as the Chilcot report states:
	We have not seen any evidence that the introduction of intercept as evidence would enable prosecutions in cases currently dealt with through control orders.
	Two other proposals made in last year's renewal debatesabout the use of the threshold test and turning Queen's evidenceare already in place.

David Winnick: On prosecution, does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be much satisfaction that Parviz Khan was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment? The charge against him, to which he pleaded guilty, was intention to kidnap a Muslim British soldier and have him beheaded. Others were also prosecuted and convicted on related offences. Is not that excellent news? It is likely that Mr. Khan will never be released unless the authorities are satisfied that he is no longer a danger to people in this country.

Tony McNulty: I hope that my hon. Friend is right on the latter point. I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments. It is interesting that roughly half the people who were convicted at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 pleaded guilty. That is testimony to the resolve and expertise of our police and security services.

Julian Lewis: I should like to add my congratulations to the police and the security services on a brilliant operation to protect that brave Muslim soldier whose life was so despicably threatened. However, is not there a lesson to be drawn from that case? Until the matter went to court and the people involved found that they had no option but to plead guilty, there was widespread concern in the Muslim community that they had been wrongly arrested and that Muslims were being unfairly targeted. Does not the case show the importance of getting as many cases as possible into court and keeping as few people as possible under alternative arrangements such as control orders?

Tony McNulty: I agree 100 per cent. That has been the Government's position throughout. I am currently carrying out a little analysis of the broad press coverage in the wake of Operation Gamble, which involved Khan among others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. If I feel so inclined, I may play back their words to some of the people to whom the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) refers. It is right and proper that due process takes place. However, there is a difference between those who freely assert their view of reality, largely from a position of ignorance, and the prosecution and police authorities who rightly do not do that to afford the defendants due process.

Evan Harris: The Minister knows that the terms of reference of control order review groups require them to keep the prospect of prosecution under review, including for breach of the order. Will he answer a more specific question, which was raised in a letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights? At control order review groupsCORGsmeetings, does the Home Office inquire whether there is active investigation of the individual by the law enforcement agencies with a view to prosecution, rather than asking the vaguer question of whether there is scope for prosecution?

Tony McNulty: I would not be so dismissive of the vaguer question. If there is the prospect of prosecution as part of the review, it must be as a result of some activity that has changed since the previous review. I therefore do not accept that point, save to say that CORGs reviewand rightly so, as the hon. Gentleman suggestsnot only the prospect for prosecution, but exit strategies and revocations, should those prosecutions not be forthcoming, an issue to which the Joint Committee also referred.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister began by saying that there is a threat from about 2,000 individuals. They are clearly linked with Islamic extremism, so will the Minister outline, first, how mosques have provided a safe haven for some of those people and, secondly, how they have helped to expose such individuals and how they can help in future?

Tony McNulty: I should very much like to go into such detailmost of it positive, rather than negativebut I fear that if I do so, I may stray beyond the bounds of the renewable order before us. Perhaps this is a hostage to fortune, in the general sense, but a fuller debate on the Government's prevent and contest strategyin particular the prevent part, which goes to the hon. Gentleman's suggestionsmight be long overdue, so I will happily take that back to the appropriate business channels.

Dominic Grieve: I want to bring the Minister back to the narrower issues of the motion. He mentioned the control order review groups and he will be aware that Lord Carlile has talked about his increasing concern that there should be a finite limit on the period to which control orders should apply. He gave a figure of two years. Can the Minister help the House by saying in how many cases we are already beyond that two-year point and how the Government are responding to the issue?

Evan Harris: Seven.

Tony McNulty: It is seven, but I shall develop the point about our response, in respect not just of exit strategies, but light touch ordersthe lower end of control orders, as it werein the body of my speech.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: In a moment. I said what I did at the beginning, before delaying and allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to intervene, because an hour-and-a-half long debate can go one of two ways: either I can try, vainly, to get through my speech and, being a generous soul, take as many interventions as I can, because this is an important and serious debate; or I can put my head down and plough through the speech, and then allow hon. Members to have their say. We are in a hybrid mode at the moment, which I am perfectly happy with. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, then address some of the questions that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised.

Tobias Ellwood: I should be grateful if the Minister continued to take interventions, which would allow us to tease out the Government's strategy on countering terrorism, because I understand that we have not had a proper debate. If this is it, I am afraid that one and a half hours does not do the issue justice. To bring him back to my question, he says that he does not have time to talk about what the threat in Britain is, but surely that is the starting point. The House should understand and debate what that threat is before renewing any more orders.

Tony McNulty: I dispute the hon. Gentleman's tail-end point, but this is most profoundly not the occasion on which to have that wider debate. I saidif I may be rather modest and generous to myselfthat I thought that the suggestion that we should have that broad debate about the Government's wider strategy, of which the order is but a very small part, is one that I would certainly take up with the relevant business channels. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are constantly discussing such matters in one form or other [ Interruption. ] No, here, too. However, a broad debate about all aspects of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy, not least the preventive dimension, is one that we should have, with time set aside, and I shall take that suggestion back. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's introductory point in part, which is why I have tried to reiterate what I think everyone in the House knows anyway, which is the serious nature of the threat. However, in respect of his broad comments about how we should have that wider debate with regularity, I am happy that that should be the case.
	Notwithstanding my brief introduction to the nature of the threat and some of the other things that we are doing, I need to continue. Control orders remain an important part of what we seek to do in that broad strategy. Notwithstanding all the improvements that I have outlinedin terms of legislation, how we do what we do and what the Chilcot implementation group might come up withas Lord Chilcot has said, we believe that there remains a small number of suspected terrorists whom, for now, we can neither prosecute nor deport. Control orders remain the best available means of dealing with such individuals, but absolutely not the most satisfactory way, as I and many members of the Government have said in the past.
	In the past three years, control orders have been an important part of the fight against terrorism. Through a tailored set of obligations, they have helped to prevent individuals from engaging in terrorism-related activities, as well as restricting and disrupting them. Control orders are not imposed arbitrarily, which is a view that is sometimes abroad. A judge must agree that a control order is necessary and proportionate, and they are subject to regular and rigorous control. There are currently 14 control orders in force, and only 31 individuals have ever been subject to one over those three years.
	We think that control orders are an important tool and they continue to enjoy support from outside the Government. First, in the landmark House of Lords judgment in October 2007, the Lords crucially upheld the control order system, although not in all terms, so we were disappointed that they did not agree with the Government on every issue. On article 5 of the European convention on human rightsthe right to libertythe Lords judged that no control order then in effect needed to be weakened. Indeed, the judgment put the Government in a stronger position than before, as the Lords effectively indicated that a 16-hour curfew would not breach article 5.
	On article 6the right to a fair trialthe judgment was complex and has therefore been widely misreported. The Lords did not say that any case before them had breached the right to a fair trial; rather, they said that in some, possibly exceptional cases, the current provisions in the 2005 Act might breach article 6. The Lords therefore read down the Act, to ensure that the procedure adopted under it would be compatible with article 6 in every case and concluded that the High Court should consider the point case by case. That forms part of the mandatory review of each individual control order by the High Court, which is one of the many safeguards in place to secure the rights of the individual. Therefore, we remain firmly of the view that the legislation and the order before us are fully compliant with the ECHR.
	Secondly, the independent reviewer of the operation of the 2005 Act, the noble Lord Carlile, continues to view control orders as necessary. He said that
	as a last resort (only), the control order system as operated currently in its non-derogating form is a justifiable and proportional safety valve for the proper protection of civil society.
	The other two statutory consulteesthe intelligence services commissioner and the director general of the Security Serviceshare that view. I should like to place on record the Government's thanks to Lord Carlile for another thorough report, which I am sure will add a great deal to today's debate. We will, of course, reply in due course.

Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Probably not, because I am mindful that others want to speak, but if I have time towards the end of my speech I shall do so.
	Of course, control orders are not perfect. However, we have worked hard over the past year to improve them.  [ Interruption. ] It is not in my nature to refuse people, and as the hon. Gentleman is on his toes, I will let him intervene.

Evan Harris: The Minister said that he felt that the Carlile report was useful to aid debate, but does he accept that it would have been more useful had there been more time to consider it? As with last year, it was published only days before this debate, which does not give enough time either to Select Committees to give it due consideration or even the Government to consider it and respond to the specific inquiries that people may have. That has happened previously and the Joint Committee has expressed its concern previously. Will the Minister give an undertaking, in line with what the Prime Minister has said, that there will be more opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, including of the independent reviewer's report, in future years?

Tony McNulty: I would hope so. I certainly cannot give that undertaking, other than to say that I will try my best. To be entirely fair to Lord Carlile, the delay last year, such as it was, was entirely the Government's fault, as I said at the time, and not his. To be perfectly fair, this time round we got the report on the Sunday or Monday of the half-term week and published it at the very first opportunity, on the Monday just gone. I understand the point about that being less than satisfactory, in respect of this debate three days later, except that the report is effectively the fourth quarterly report, which sums up the other three, too, so that people should at least be clear about the background numbers and actions taken under the Act. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point that a bit more time would have been useful for everyone concerned.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield has referred to some of the criticisms of the orders. I accept that they are not perfect, but I think it is fair to say that we have worked hard over the past year to improve them. For instance, last year there was much talk of exit strategies for those on control orders. I am unconvinced by the idea that there should be an arbitrary end date for individual control orders, in part because each order addresses an individual risk, but I am firmly of the view that control orders should be imposed for as short a time as possible, commensurate with the risk posed.
	Consideration of appropriate exit strategies is an integral part of the formal quarterly review for every control order. An order can be renewed only if it is necessary to do so. Indeed, over the last year we have seen two control orders revoked and another two orders not renewed. In fact, the control orders of 17 of the 31 individuals who have been subject to an order are no longer in force. So I do not entirely agree with Lord Carlile about a two-year limit, although I agree that, if we can put more rigorous review mechanisms in place as a control order remains in place for longer, we should do so. As I have said, however, we should start from the premise that they should be imposed for as short a time as possible, bearing in mind the degree of risk involved.
	As I mentioned last year, we take very seriously the prospect of prosecuting individuals subject to control orders. These matters are considered on an ongoing basis and reviewed formally each quarter. Over the past year, we have put new procedures in place, and the police and CPS provide more detail on the prospects for prosecution to the court.
	As well as greater use of exit strategies, Lord Carlile also notes the difficulties in enforcing so-called light touch control orders. I agree that this is problematic but I am not convinced by his suggested alternatives. Over the past year, we have reviewed all current control orders, and the monitoring procedures to which they are subject, in order to ensure that they are as effective as possible. In a number of cases, where it was necessary and proportionate to do so, the control orders were strengthened. That does not mean that my mind is closed to the notion of dealing differently with the so-called light touch end of the control order regime. I just mean that I am not entirely sure that the antisocial behaviour order and other routes suggested by Lord Carlile are appropriate.
	We have also been working on legislative improvements to control orders. The Counter-Terrorism Bill, which was introduced on 24 January, includes measures to improve the policing of control orders. The Bill will also give hon. Members a further opportunity to debate the control order system more generally, including points raised in the JCHR report published yesterday. I look forward to seeing those suggested amendments.
	In summary, we are confronted by a threat from terrorism which is determined, indiscriminate and brutal. We must protect the public while ensuring that our fundamental rights and values are protected, and we must do that overwhelmingly within the body of the rule of law, our statutes and the terrorism legislation framework. There are and will be very small matters of exception in that regard, of which control orders are a part. I say freely that they are part of the delicate balancing act between security and human rights. They are also a significant part of the Government's, um, ability to protect the public from the risk of terrorism. I hesitated because my speaking notes use the word toolkit, which is a rather pathetic word in this regard. It belongs in the dustbin, along with roll-out, stakeholder and all those sorts of things.
	In all seriousness, not renewing the 2005 Act would increase the risk to the public. That is a prospect that we cannot allow. I take on board many of the issues that hon. Members, Lord Carlile and the Joint Committee have raised in order to try to improve the system, but, as Sir John Chilcot has said, the system needs to remain to fill a vital gap in regard to risk. I commend the order to the House.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister delivered one of his characteristic speeches. He tends to look at the general rather than condescend to the particular. This is an important issue. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is in the Chamber today, opened the debate for the Opposition last year, he said, with good reason, that he thought it most unlikely that we would be able to support the renewal of the control order arrangements again.
	The background to this matter is, in a sense, engraved on my heart, given that it started with a marathon 36-hour sitting of the House in 2005. It is significant that much of what was proposed by the Government in an effort to reach a compromise at the end of the stand-off between the House of Commons and the House of Lords has not really occurred. At the time, it was intimated in debate that these powers were required to deal with several hundred people. That is what the then Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, said; it was one of the strongest arguments advanced. We now know, however, that a maximum of 31 individuals have been dealt with under this procedure.
	Furthermore, the stand-off was ended when the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told the House that he was working on the basis that there would be an early opportunity for an entire review of the architecture of the anti-terrorism laws, which would allow the issue of control orders to be looked at afresh. Indeed, he put forward a timetable that envisaged that, during 2006, we would have a new anti-terrorism Act, that we would be able to consider it with great care, and that there would be an opportunity during its passage for us to conduct a complete overview of the existing anti-terrorism legislation and to consider carefully reports such as that produced by Lord Carlile in early 2006, when the first renewal of control orders would come before the House.
	In fact, that did not happen. In fairness to the Government, it did not happen because the July 2005 bombings led to the next anti-terrorism measure being introduced earlier than the Government expected. In fact, it was passed, after ping-pong with the House of Lords, on the very day that the first renewal came up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark will remember. Far from that legislation providing us with an opportunity to take an overall view of anti-terrorism measures in the round, it was so narrowly craftedand, most regrettably, sufficiently harshly guillotined as to prevent adequate scrutiny, as is characteristic of the way we legislate in this place todaythat no such opportunity existed to examine, by amendment in Committee, how the existing anti-terrorism powers might need to be reviewed or got rid of. Instead, our deliberations were dominated by such issues as glorification and the proposal for a 90-day pre-charge detention period.
	For that reason, when this matter came up for review on its first review date, we did not oppose it. We looked at Lord Carlile's report. It is noteworthy that, with each of his reports on the operation of control orders, he has become more lukewarm. He has also become more anxious about the impact that they will have by lasting a longer time, and about the fact that, in many cases, it is difficult to see how they provide adequate protection for the public, given that it appears relatively easy to abscond or to breach their terms. He also highlights the fact that they havemercifully, perhapsbeen applied only to a very limited number of people.
	Currently, as the Minister highlighted, only 15 control orders are in force. Although I do not think that there has been any dispute of the view that several hundred peopleit might possibly run into several thousandin this country may pose a threat, 15 is a very small number. Because we are concerned with only 15 people, it raises the question, which the Minister has to answer, of whether we could do without this mechanism at all, particularly when the Minister has acknowledged that in its impact on civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law, it is an undesirable mechanism of last resort and not one that any Government would wish to see on the statute book for a day longer than is necessary.
	It is worth looking at Lord Carlile's comments. The Minister was rather dismissive of the suggestion of replacing light touch control orders with antisocial behaviour orders. When I read that, my eyes started out of my own head, because my personal view of ASBOs, in terms of being an effective mechanism for controlling people's behaviour, is not very high. However, if someone with the authority of Lord Carlile thinks that an ASBO would probably be as good as a light touch control order, it really highlights an issue that the Minister must deal with in his reply, because on the face of it, the light touch control order clearly appears to Lord Carlile to be of very little benefit indeed.
	Lord Carlile also highlighted the extent to which the implementation of control orders will require considerable human resources for surveillance. One issue that clearly arises is the extent to which that surveillance is available. The number of cases of absconding suggests that the surveillance supplied may be relatively limited. Of course, one could reverse the argument and say that if large levels of surveillance are already available, we might not need a control order in the first placeone of the arguments raised when we first discussed this issue some three years ago.
	Another matter that troubles me is the length of time for which these orders have lasted. We know that seven individuals have been subject to control orders for more than two years and there is plainly great anxiety on Lord Carlile's part about the propriety of such lengthy infringements of liberty. It is important to note that he thinks that the likely value of an individual to terrorists after a prolonged period of being subject to a control order is, in reality, going to be very slight. That being the case, finding some way of dispensing with control orders is clearly going to be very desirable.
	What troubles meand it may trouble the Houseis what practical steps the Government are going to take over the next 12 months before we come back for the next renewal to see whether we can, in fact, get rid of control orders for good. That is the challenge that the Minister has to answer. It is a challenge that I have also had to consider as Opposition spokesman deciding whether to support the renewals or to seek to oppose them. On balance, and with a considerable degree of reluctance, our conclusion is that we should allow renewal to take place this year. There is a very specific reason for that, which I want to bring to the Minister's attention, and I shall seek some assurances that he will not only note it, but act on it.
	We know that a Counter-Terrorism Bill has been published and it is believed that it is likely to secure its Second Reading before the Easter break. That provides an opportunity, if the Government wish to provide it, for an overall review of counter-terrorism legislation. I have to say that I am rather cynical and not very confident that that is what will happen. The history of such legislation suggests that we often tend to get bogged down in confrontationand there may well be serious confrontation over the plan to extend pre-charge detention to 42 daysand that the way in which such Bills are considered in Committee and, indeed, on Report makes it virtually impossible to table Opposition amendments to probe and review the current operation of existing terrorism legislation, which would allow us to have precisely the sort of debate that the Minister suggested earlier would be so desirable in order to examine things with a broader perspective rather than focus on the narrow issue of renewal.
	If the Minister and the Government are prepared to rise to the occasion, I like to think that we could use the Counter-Terrorism Bill and the opportunity for debate surrounding it to have some sensible discussions that could lead to the Government having sufficient confidence to decide that this order will not require renewal at all next year. It is only on those grounds that we have decided not to vote against the renewal motion this afternoon. I have to tell the Minister, however, that the longer this process goes on and the longer control orders remain in place on individuals, the more difficult the renewal process will become. If we come back next year and find that seven individuals will have been subject to control orders for more than three years, the Government's position will start to become even more difficult.
	I acknowledge, as we acknowledged at the outset, that there might be circumstances in which control orders are necessary. That is why, when we first debated the matter three years ago, we accepted the principle. Our argument was over the question of having a sunset clause. We wanted such a clause, which is different from an annual renewal, in order to ensure that, at some point in a reasonable time frame, this matter could come to the crunch and the Government would have to justify their position by primary legislation and a full Bill rather than by a mere one and a half hour debate. We were right in that, and everything that has happened since makes me think that our position was reasonable, moderate and correct. Now, however, the question is whether the Government will take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance this afternoon that he has taken our points seriously into account.

David Winnick: I am not normally a great supporter of consensus. I doubt whether many Members would say that I have urged consensus during my time in the House, especially when I sat on the Opposition Benches. I certainly did notand for good and valid reasons. When it comes to combating terrorism, however, I depart from my perhaps more controversial position because I believe that there is room to find a consensus.
	We are all opposed to terrorismthat goes without saying. Not a single Member of the House would argue that there was any possible justification for inflicting terror, and we are not likely to forget in a hurry the 52 totally innocent people who were slaughtered on 7/7. They had as much right to live as the rest of us. In the House and in the country we have a pretty long collective memory, and I hope that what occurred then will not be forgotten for a long time to come. Neither should we forget that those who were responsible acted from a fanatical religious position that was at odds with everything that scholars of Islam have said repeatedly, arguing that the mass murderers had totally distorted the religion of Islam.
	As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has just said, we will probably debate the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill before the Easter break. I hope it will be possible to use the short period before that debate to try to reach a consensus, particularly on the number of days for which terror suspects can be held without charge. As I have said repeatedly in the Home Affairs Committee and elsewhere, it would be unfortunate to have once again division of the sort that occurred in November 2005.
	Obviously, I am not keen on control ordersis anyone?but I go along with them, perhaps more so than the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because I well understand that in certain circumstances it is not possible to prosecute although there is a pretty strong feelingor evidence, rather than feelingthat certain individuals could pose a danger or a threat to this country. In such circumstances, I suppose that there is an argument for control orders, but they should not be indefinite. I hope that, over a shorter period rather than a longer one, we can find a different solution. However, I certainly would not wish to divide the House on the issue, and if the main Opposition were to do so, which they will not, I would not be other than on the Government's side, because I understand their position.
	I return to the intervention that I made in the Minister's speech: at the end of it all, there is no adequate alternative to prosecution. It is essential that, in so far as it is possible, the normal process of law should take place. Indeed, before this debate we had exchanges on rendition and the situation in the United States, and no one who spoke was other than critical of the situation there.
	We want to remain entirely committed to the rule of lawlet us compare the situation in the UK with what is happening in the United Stateswhich is why I am pleased that Parvis Khan has been convicted, for the reasons that I stated earlier. The case is indeed monstrous and he pleaded guilty. The intention was to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier. Rightly, the court decided on a life sentencea minimum of 14 yearsand as the judge pointed out, Khan might not be released at all, unless the authorities feel that it is safe to do so.

Julian Lewis: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said. May I impose for a second longer on the House with the observations of Sir Robert Thompson, whom I quoted earlier? He also said that
	the firm policy of the government to bring all persons who have committed an actual offence to public trial
	is vital. He went on:
	This has the great advantage not only of showing that justice is being done but of spotlighting the brutality of terrorist crimes and the whole nature of the insurgent conspiracy.
	That is precisely what the trial of that terrible case has just done.

David Winnick: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	Another point I want to make arising from the conviction of Parvis Khan and others relates to the remarks of the assistant chief constable of the west midlands, Anil Patani, who is head of security and cohesion for West Midlands police. He urged everyone to recognise that the terrorist threat is genuine, and he was rather critical of comments made by some in the Muslim community in the Birmingham area. For example, the chair of the Birmingham central mosque compared the raids that have occurred to the situation in Nazi Germany.
	It is important for everyone to recognise the terrorist threat, and the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community, whether in the west midlands or anywhere else in this country, knows and recognises that terrorism is wrong. Those people recognise, as was the case with 7/7, that if terrorism takes place, Muslims can be the victimsslaughtered or seriously injured like anyone else. They have no illusions on that score. It is therefore important for those who are, or claim to be, representative of the Muslim community not to make remarks like the one that I have just quoted. It serves no purpose whatever.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how we can sensitively understand what sometimes happens behind the closed doors of mosques that have been seen to harbour a form of extremism?

David Winnick: In my borough, there is no such problem. The Muslim community in the Walsall area has always been moderate and totally opposed to any form of terrorism or anything of that kind. I believe there are very few places of religious worship that would wish to help or encourage those engaged in terrorism, but of course any that exist should be exposed. What the assistant chief constable of the West Midlands police said is important: everyone should recognise that the terrorist threat is real, and must be combated in every way possible.

Dominic Grieve: As it happens, I visited the Birmingham mosque shortly after those words were uttered by its chairman. I do not think the chairman's words necessarily represented the views of the worshippers in the mosque, or indeed anyone's views. It should also be said that one of the regrettable aspects of the police operation in BirminghamI hasten to add that it was none of their faultwas that, as the hon. Gentleman probably remembers, details of it were leaked to the press in a manner that turned the central mosque and the main area in which Muslims were living into a goldfish bowl. I am afraid that it produced the very circumstances in which paranoia can thrive.

David Winnick: What happened in Forest Gate is another example. I hope that the authoritiesthe police, the Home Office and the restwill always bear in mind the fact that if certain steps are taken which are not appropriate, they can prove entirely counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.
	I hope that in the short period between now and the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the Government will make some attempt to find a consensus, particularly on the number of days for which people can be held without charge. There is already a broad consensus in the House that the period should be 28 days, and no evidence has been produced suggesting that it should be longer. If the Government want to secure a consensus, they should again enter into negotiations with those of us who are highly critical of an extension beyond 28 days, and certainly with the Opposition parties.

Tom Brake: In preparation for the debate, I studied last year's debate carefully and noted the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). In his opening speech, he identified four points relating to control orders which he felt should be addressed. In his view, the standard of proof required for the Secretary of State to sign non-derogating control orders was too low, the power to impose the orders should reside with the courts, the orders should be strictly time-limited, and they should be subject to regular and thorough reviews. It is worth considering what progress has been made since then, and what progress has been made generally.
	Some progress has been made on at least one issue, that of intercept evidence. Notwithstanding the Minister's proviso that intercept evidence does not necessarily supply a silver bullet, I am glad the Prime Minister has said that he is examining the Chilcot report to establish which of its recommendations can be implemented as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about how those recommendations will be implemented.

Patrick Mercer: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have the ability to use intercept evidence in court? No, we do not. And have we made any progress in that regard? Absolutely not.

Tom Brake: I think we have made some progress. I think it may now be more widely accepted on the Government Benches that intercept evidence should be considered. The Prime Minister's statement makes it clear that he is willing to consider it, and presumably willing to allow it to be used at a future date. The progress could, however, be described as limited rather than extensive.

Patrick Mercer: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are just talking and creating hot air yet again.

Tom Brake: Far be it from me to suggest that the Government are creating hot air. We have a statement from the Prime Minister that makes clear his willingness to look at the report's recommendations, and one can only anticipate that his Government will act on them.
	I had also hoped that we would make some progress in terms of the official Opposition's position. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) when he spoke 12 months ago, made clear their position on control orders. The hon. Member for Newark said:
	this system does not work and it has to be replaced by something competent
	and
	there have been a series of shambles.[ Official Report, 22 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 440-41.]
	Unfortunately, despite the fact that he described control orders as a series of shambles, the official Opposition then chose to vote in favour of them. The hon. Gentleman also stated 12 months ago that it was very likely that the official Opposition would again support control orders this time, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has made it clear that that will be the case.

Dominic Grieve: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the matters we were discussing a few moments ago, such as the use of intercept evidence. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating: a Counter-Terrorism Bill is imminent, and if it implements the measures we want, it ought to go a long way towards giving the Government the confidence to abandon control orders. I also think that once it is on the statute book it will strongly strengthen the hands of those who are unhappy about control orders. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand why, despite our great reservations, we have adopted the position we have this afternoon.

Tom Brake: I echo the hon. Gentleman's point about expectations of how the Counter-Terrorism Bill might assist by making it likely that the need for control orders diminishes or goes away entirely. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said about how he thinks the Government will deal with the Counter-Terrorism Bill: he said that he was cynical, and not confident that they will address it in the way he hopes.
	There has been little progress on the four points my right hon. Friend raised 12 months ago. Members have rightly drawn attention to the time limits issue. The Minister quoted Lord Carlile's report, and he will therefore be familiar with the points Lord Carlile made about what he describes as the endgame in relation to control orders. He said:
	I remain concerned about the ending, or endgame, of each control order,
	and he also stated that they
	cannot be continued indefinitely.
	He also said that, 12 months ago,
	I advised that, as a matter of urgency, a strategy is needed for the ending of the orders in relation to each controlee,
	and
	it is only in rare cases that control orders can be justified for more than two years.
	He also advisesthe Minister has responded to this
	that there should be a recognised and possibly statutory presumption against a control order being extended beyond two years.
	The Minister has made it clear that he does not support Lord Carlile's view. However, I hope he will at least agree that his position is worthy of debate, and possibly of a vote in this place at some point in the near future.
	While we are on the subject of time limits, it might be useful to mention that there is a need for a time restriction on the curfew of 12 hours, following the House of Lords judgment that an 18-hour detention period is unacceptable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights requested that restriction. I hope the Minister will make clear his position on that issue and whether the Government have a view on what an appropriate detention or curfew period might be.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam also raised concerns about the review process 12 months ago. We welcome the creation of the control order review group and how it is operating.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which indicated that 12 hours would appear to be about right for the maximum time limit. The Government do not accept that. When the Law Lords indicated that 18 hours was too long and 16 hours was right and thus quashed a control order, the Government subsequently increased some control orders from 12 to 16 hours. They have made their view clear, but it is regrettable.

Tom Brake: I can only echo my hon. Friend's concerns.
	I was discussing control orders being subject to regular and thorough review. I appreciate the work that the control order review group is doing, but hon. Members have referred to the issue of how Lord Carlile's review of control orders is conducted. More specifically, we need to consider the time scale for conducting it, passing it on to Government and publishing it. The Minister rightly put on the record what happened in a previous year and what happened this year. He acknowledgedhon. Members and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have also flagged this upthat we could do better on the length of time the report is available for hon. Members and the Committee to consider.
	The Minister put his case in a measured manner, acknowledging that control orders are not perfect. I regret that little new has been said this year. Our concerns have not been addressed this year, so to be consistent with the position we adopted last year we intend to divide the House on this issue again this year.

Andrew Dismore: I should like to discuss the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. The report is one of the relevant documents in this debate, and as we have had a wide-ranging debate, it is important that we focus on the motion.
	The Committee is in full agreement with the Government about the positive obligation of human rights law to take effective steps to protect the public from the real threat of terrorism, and the need to keep measures under review to ensure that the authorities are properly equipped, both legally and physically, to respond to the threat and to ensure that measures taken are not incompatible with human rights in the light of experience. If the measures are incompatible, that will ultimately become counter-productive.
	The Committee agrees with the Government that the control order regime is the second best option to prosecutionI think that there is a general consensus about that. It is also clear that control orders, in some form, will be needed for the foreseeable future. We need to examine them in detail in the light of experience and court judgments to see what changes to the regime are needed. Our recommendations fall into four broad categories: the need for better parliamentary scrutiny; the need to look at the obligations and restrictions contained in the control orders; the need for due process; and, last but not least, the need for an exit strategy.
	I shall deal first with parliamentary scrutiny. Lord Carlile's report was published only three days ago. I do not blame the Home Office on this occasion, but inevitably our report could therefore only be published yesterday to inform today's debate. According to statute, Lord Carlile's report should have been prepared as soon as practicable after 10 December 2007the date of the previous quarterly review. The way that this situation has occurred year after year frustrates the scrutiny provisions set out in section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It prompts a question, because very similar terms on the parliamentary review of pre-charge detention are provided for in the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The issue needs to be examined.
	My Committee recommends that we should have the report at least a month ahead, to enable us to produce our findings on it and to inform debate more effectively. We also think it is important that the reviewer should be appointed by and report directly to Parliament, and that the Secretary of State should produce an annual report to Parliament.

Evan Harris: Given that the deadline for renewal is not until 11 March, and the Government chose to have the debate today rather than in a week's or two weeks' time, it is the scheduling of this business for today that has in part led to the contraction of time available for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider the independent reviewer's report and for Members to read any report from the Joint Committee.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair criticism, but the serendipitous effect of having the debate at this stage is that it enables us to put before the House our recommendations for reform and gives the Government time to consider those recommendations when we consider the terrorism Bill later. It would, however, be far better if we had the time to debate the issues properly and in an informed way.
	On the terms of the control orders and whether they amount to deprivation of liberty, the Government say that none of the control orders now in forceor indeed ever madederogate from article 5 of the convention on the right to liberty. If that were the case, only courts could make such orders. We need to consider the restrictions in the control orders in combination with each other and with the daily length of the curfew. As has been said, the Government have extrapolated from the House of Lords decision the belief that 16 hours is satisfactory, but that is to quote only part of the views of Lord Brown, who goes on to say in his judgment, on which the Government rely:
	It may be, indeed, that 16 hours is too long. I would, however, leave it to the Strasbourg Court to decide upon that.
	Our view is that 16 hours is too long. The average control order is now 10 hours, and our view is that 12 hours would be an appropriate length. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights, in a case involving Italy, has found that nine hours amounted to deprivation of liberty, so there would be severe and serious consequences for liberty if the maximum daily limit were not reviewed.
	One of the Committee's main concerns arises from questions of due process. We are in something of a Kafkaesque world when it comes to the way control orders are brought forwardor perhaps I should cite Henry VIII's star chamber, as that was only a few yards away from where we are today. The Secretary of State gives no reasons for making the control order to the controlee, who is not told of the case against him to the extent that it is based on closed material. The special advocatethe controlee's lawyercannot discuss the case with his client. The control order is made solely on the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the Committee's consideration of the matter, did my hon. Friend come across any parallel situations in any European country in which the defendant was denied access to the crucial information about why he or she was being prosecuted in the first place?

Andrew Dismore: We have not done any detailed comparative work to that effect, so I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question one way or the other. However, I would be surprised if that were the case and we had a very different regime under common law, looking at the issue of terrorism more generally, compared with some of the civil law countries.
	It is important to recognise that mistakes can be made, especially when one is working on the basis of intelligence, as the Lotfi Raissi case graphically illustrated a couple of weeks agoalthough in a very different context to control orders. We believe that we must have safeguards against such problems commensurate both with public safety and protection of sources. For that reason, we would like to see incorporated in the law an absolute guaranteed right to a fair hearing. The House of Lords, in a recent case, said that those words should be read into the statute, but they do not appear there. Without that reference, there is a lack of certainty in the law and we need that express reference.
	We believe that the gist of the closed material should be disclosed to the controlee. That can be done in a way that protects sources, but the controlee is entitled to know at least the basis of the case against him. We believe that special advocates, with the leave of the courtthrough an application to the High Court ex parteshould be permitted to discuss closed material in those circumstances with a controlee, if authorised by the court to do so. We believe that the Secretary of State should give reasons for the making of the control order.
	The standard of proof is also important. Reasonable suspicion is a very low standard, compared with the seriousness of the consequences for the controlee of the making of the order. We think that the balance of probabilities would be a better test. We also thinkalthough it would probably be of less utilitythat the special advocates should be able to call rebuttal witnesses. At present, their right to do so is questionable.
	I mentioned the need for an exit strategy. Seven of the controlees have been under a control order now for two years. Two of the 15 have been under a control order for three years, and we believe that for the three years before that they were in indefinite detention in Belmarsh. That makes six years, all together, in detention or under control for people who have not been convicted of any offence at all. We run the risk of creating Guantanamo-style martyrs. Perhaps they are not as visible. They are not under the same sort of oppressive regime, for sure. Perhaps they are in the gilded cage of Acacia avenue rather than the harshness of a Cuban camp, but we have still seen indefinite restrictions on their freedom and six years is far too long.
	After such a length of time, as Lord Carlile says, those people will be of questionable use to any terrorist group. Such groups prefer to work with people with clean skins, as we saw in all the terrorist attacks that have taken place so far. The individuals concerned are clearly fingered and subject to ongoing monitoring.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On that general point, in its discussions has his Committee come across any view from anyone within the communities from which the detainees or those who are subject to control orders come that shows a changed attitude to the police and security services in our society?

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to join such an important debate late in the day, and when time is urgent, to delay or procrastinate during a speech when many other hon. Members want to participate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly unusual for hon. Members to come in late, but nothing prevents an hon. Member from making interventions if the hon. Member on his feet is prepared to accept them.

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for not being here for the opening section of the debate. I was conducting an advice bureau in my constituency. I feel strongly about this matter and wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore); I was not trying to delay the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Corbyn.

Andrew Dismore: I think that my hon. Friend raised the issue of the general impact on community relations and co-operation in the minority communities, which might be feeling somewhat targeted. That issue is very much on my Committee's mind.
	On the question of an exit strategy for control orders, we welcome the creation of the control order review group. We think that there should be a positive duty to keep the control orders under review in each case. There are a series of options available to the CORG. Prosecution is, of course, the primary option and the most preferable. However, the fact remains that not a single controlee has been subject to prosecution so far. We believe that control orders should be made only when there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution being brought successfully, except in urgent cases, and that there should be a duty to that effect. In fact, in 2007 there was only one such urgent case. Our view is that controlees should be subject to a three-monthly review, with a view towards prosecution.
	Deportation is very important. Nine notices have been served and six people have been deported. It is a question of modifying the restrictions, revocation, non-renewal and the important option of de-radicalisation. However, that does not get round the question of the maximum duration of the control order and indeed the question of the people we mentioned who might be subject to controls for up to six years.
	There is no clear answer in human rights law to this question, beyond saying that human rights law prohibits the severe controls of indefinite duration. Lord Carlile's recommendation is for a maximum of two years as a rebuttable presumption in statute other than in genuinely exceptional cases. We tend to favour that approach. It is a difficult question and we feel that it is worthy of a debate in Parliament. In due course, we hope to table an amendment to facilitate such debate.
	In conclusion, I repeat the fact that human rights law imposes a duty on the state to protect us all from terrorism and that the Committee sees control orders as second best. We must ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny, that the restrictions we impose on people are proportionate and the subject of due process, and that there is a proper exit strategy available in each case.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights will propose amendments to the new Bill to facilitate debate on the control order regime and other things that we think should be considered in detail. I shall certainly support the Government this afternoon, because the order is not amendable. I hope that by next year experience will have led to the sort of changes that we believe will make the control order regime not only fairer but ultimately better in the overall strategic objective of combating terrorism.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and it is a great pleasure to be able to address the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing as right honourable. I pass my congratulations to him.
	The people we seldom properly support, praise and laud are our security services, including the police, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Were it not for the outstanding and gallant behaviour of those men and women over the past 12 months I have little doubt that we would have seen further atrocities, further dead and further injured. It is in the nature of their duties that they remain unsung and low profile. All of us, from whichever side of the House we speak, have a duty to record our thanks and admiration for the brave men and women who do that job on a daily basis.
	It depresses me that I am experiencing almost dj vu. Last year I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, opposite the right hon. Gentleman, and when I look at the words I uttered then I see that almost nothing has changed. It depresses me that in matters of life and deathas I believe these arethe House is so dilatory in making real progress on subjects that can make a difference to the liberty and indeed the continued life of terrorists. For instance, this time last year, we were talking about one of the most important measures that we could possibly put in place to displace the control order regimeintercept evidence. There were signsgreen shoots of hopethat the Government might consider the use of intercept evidence. This year we know that the Government will indeed accept the use of intercept evidenceafter yet another period of review. Why do we need to be so slow?
	Why have we not thought of making it very clear that we can use post-charge questioning? My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has advised me that the powers already exist. Those powers, along with the use of intercept evidence, might mean that one or two of the individuals currently under the thoroughly unsatisfactory, inhuman and liberty-taking measure of control orders could either be prosecuted or released. In any event, they could be brought to court and put in front of a jury.
	Similarly, why have we heard so little about plea bargaining? A number of eloquent speeches have been made about the use of that measure yet it is one of those things that is seldom talked about, even though we can see how it is used by the American judiciary. Will the Minister give us some of his words of wisdom about those three measures, which could probably take people off control orders?
	Exactly like last year, the Minister said that control orders were an important tool. I think I quote exactly his words of last year, and certainly of this year. If the orders are an important tool, why are they so inefficient? Why do they not produce the results we want? Why are individuals allowed to abscond? Why have the orders been compared to antisocial behaviour orders? As we have heard, we are talking about dangerous terrorists, in many cases bent on mass destruction. We must not conflate a measure that we might use against a young hooligan on the streets of Newark with measures against people who are hellbent on creating mass destruction and killing hundreds, if not thousands, of our fellow citizens.
	Lastly, because although the subject is important others must speak, will the Minister talkif he canabout a programme for rehabilitation of individuals who are either in prison already or subject to control orders? Singapore, Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines all have a well developed rehabilitation programme for individuals under close supervision. As we have heard many times this afternoon, such individuals are of no further use to terrorist organisations so what are we doing to bring them on-side? What are we doing to suck dry their expertise on their previous thoughts and how they were suborned? How can we use them against the very people who turned their minds? I appreciate that the Minister might not want to go into detail about that, but I would none the less like to hear from him this yearhe avoided the issue last yearabout what we are doing in that respect.
	The control orders are thoroughly unsatisfactory. We are going to have a huge debate and confrontation over the amount of time for which we can hold terrorists without charge, be it 28, 42 or 90 days. In my viewI am probably one of the few people in the Chamber who would say this28 days is far too long, but we are where we are, and I accept the fact that we have decided on it. However, I hope that that debate and the Counter-Terrorism Bill will provide the opportunity to get the wicked, inefficient and incompetent series of measures known as control orders off the statute book.

David Winnick: We have deliberated on the matter in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Do I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that he will not vote for an extension beyond 28 days?

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman understands it completely rightly. My personal view, as I will iterate, is that 28 days are far too many. We are where we are, but I will not vote for an extension beyond 28 days. I would like the Bill to involve a thorough review of the control order regime. On that basis, in line with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and despite what I said this time last year, I will not oppose the Government.

Tobias Ellwood: I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). He speaks passionately about these issues, and I think that my frustration is shared throughout the House that one and a half hours is not enough time to debate them. The Minister has acknowledged that, and I appreciate his suggestionI hope that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), is listeningthat we might have an opportunity to discuss the wider picture and the impact that the order will have as one part of the jigsaw of tackling terrorism in the United Kingdom.
	The Minister also said that prosecution was the Government's first, second and third priority. Leading on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said about rehabilitation, I just came back from Saudi Arabia, where 300 to 400 detainees are being put through a rehabilitation programme, with huge success. When the Minister sums up, will he comment on that? Perhaps we are not doing enough to get into the mindset of such individuals and prevent home-grown British Muslims from putting on the suicide jacket. I was shocked to hear that Guantanamo Bay has no such programme, and goodness knows how long the people there have been held. The Saudi programme was incredible. It brought in imams and people familiar with lecturing and teaching not only in Saudi Arabia but throughout the middle east to make the terrorists understand that their version and understanding of the Koran were simply out of context and wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks a moment ago. Does he not accept that one of the problems with his concept of rehabilitation, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), is that the people whom we are discussing have not been convicted of anything? They have therefore not been found guilty. What are they being rehabilitated from if they have not been through a legal process?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I do not want to take away from the suggestion that a rehabilitation programme needs to be considered; where it will fit into the procedure is a matter for further debate.
	As a result of the shortness of this debate, we have not had the opportunity to discuss exactly what the threat is. The Minister mentioned that there were 2,000 or so detainees. Interestingly, the US national security adviser, Secretary Chertoff, made it clear a month ago that the threat to the US now comes from Europe and the United Kingdom. That warrants a debate in the House. We have touched on the issue of mosques and the role that they play in the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that the 1.5 million people in the UK who go to its 1,300 mosques are law-abiding and peace-loving people, but there are individuals who choose to use the Koran and the words of Islam in their own way. They are the ones whom we need to seek out, in order to understand what they are doing. The community is diverse and there is no leaderno papal figurewho speaks for everyone. Because we have such a free and open society, it allows terrorist groups to operate in the United Kingdom in a way that we have not seen before and we are suffering the consequences. There is now a well trodden path between Britain and the mountains of Pakistan, where they complete their training, before coming back to this country.
	We have had no discussion of that. We have gone straight into the detail, without understanding why home-grown Muslims decide to don the jacket and blow themselves up, along with British citizens. Richard Wright, the shoe bomber, was British. Mohammad Sidique Khan

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are speaking about the renewal of an order. Perhaps he could direct his remaining remarks to that.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I asked the Minister about the guidelines given to the police when dealing with extremist literature if it is discovered in UK mosques. He said that powers are given to the police, and that the police issue guidelines to their officers that say that they are not allowed to go into mosques and remove any literature or artefacts. If that is the case, how can we understand what is happening in our mosques?
	Another illustration of whether the order is working is the hesitancy with which we dealt with the demonstrations that took place outside the Danish embassy. It took months for any arrests to be made. That suggests that the measure is not working as it should.  [Interruption.] The Minister says that there were prosecutions. No arrests were made on the day.
	I conclude by saying that today's debate is inadequate for the scale of the subject that we are consideringthe threat, the sums of money being spent, and the impact on our daily lives. We need to understand the bigger picture and focus on why a British-born Muslim is radicalised to the point of wearing a suicide jacket with the aim of killing British citizens.

Evan Harris: I have only a few minutes to set out the reasons why my hon. Friends and I will be voting against the renewal order today.
	There are three broad reasons for our decision. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said from the Front Bench, fundamental problems with control orders have not been addressed, which is why there were grave difficulties in getting the House, and certainly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to agree to them in the first place. Secondly, there is the problem of inadequate parliamentary scrutiny. The third reason is the points made in successive reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which were eloquently summarised by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
	Parliamentary scrutiny is rubbish when it comes to control order renewalI think that the Minister was on his way to accepting that. There should be more than a one and a half hour debate so that we do not have to rush the points that we wish to make, although I agree that they should be narrowly on the question of control orders and parliamentary scrutiny.
	The report of the independent reviewer, upon which so much reassurance was staked by the Government in the original legislation, is available several weeks ahead of a decision that the House takes so that it can be considered by Members, and so that Select Committeesnot just the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I servecan consider it, take evidence if necessary and issue a report.
	The detailed report from the Joint Committee was produced in rapid order and was published only yesterday. That does not allow enough time for many people to consider it, not least the Minister. There must be a way of ensuring that that report is made available in good time, whoever has responsibilityI accept what the Minister said in respect of this occasionor at least ensuring that the debate is held a few days later, nearer the deadline. That request was raised previously.
	The Joint Committee proposed many amendments to the control order regime. One was in respect of due process and a fair trial. It is not satisfactory for the Government to rely on the House of Lords judgment, reading words into it and making a circular argumentit is bound to be a fair trial because it will be a fair trial. Given the controversy about the detail and the framework of control orders, it is incumbent on Parliament to make clear the requirements for a fair trial, not just in terms of releasing the gist of the case against the controlee, but with respect to other matters. It is not satisfactory for the Government to rely, as they do, on scraping through on majority decisions, reading in words in the House of Lords. They may or may not come to grief in Strasbourg, but it is not satisfactory. That is one of the reasons why my hon. Friends and I will be voting against renewal today.

Tony McNulty: As I tried to say at the start of my contribution, I broadly agree that we should have the time to debate in greater depth the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the annual reviewer's reportsand not necessarily just in respect of the narrow point of the renewal of the order. I am happy to take the matter back to the relevant authorities. I am not entirely sure whether it would be appropriate as part of the narrow focus on renewal, but a broader, in-depth discussion of both reports, on the issue of control orders and perhaps more broadly, would be welcome.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister iterate his desire for us to have a wider-ranging debate on Government counter-terrorism strategy?

Tony McNulty: Yes, I willas I also said earlier. However, that would be a separate debate; the business managers will love me. Three years on, there has not been an in-depth debate about the pros and cons of control orders. To be fair, the renewal of the order on our narrow parliamentary basis, defined by our rules for the hour and a half, will never be that satisfactory, so such a debate would also be appropriate.
	I would still welcome a broader debate on counter-terrorism strategy and a debate, here or elsewhere, on preventiona key aspect that relates in part to the points made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). His points were probably inappropriate for today, but no matter; some, although not all, of themI have no time to discuss whichwere entirely valid.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I will, but only if the hon. Gentleman promises not simply to reiterate last year's speech, which is all he did today.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way; I shall not be reiterating last year's speech. He says that he will facilitate the debate that he thinks we should have. Will he also facilitate an opportunity during that debate for a vote on whether two years is the appropriate cut-off point for control orders?

Tony McNulty: No, I will not; the hon. Gentleman is being rather silly. He asks me to make up policy on the hoof. I cannot facilitate debates; I have said that I shall urge the relevant authorities to afford us those debates on the Floor of the House. I have said that although I take the point that indefinite control orders are certainly inappropriate and probably counter-productive, somewhere around two or three years is the norm.
	However, the hon. Gentleman assertswith confidence, of course, as Liberal Democrats dothat there is absolutely no need for a control order beyond two years. It is not his fault, but he has no idea of the security threat, the risk or the assessment made by professional police officers, the Security Service and the judiciary about the length of a control order in respect of the caveats and conditions put on it. He blithely says that two years is about enoughand, by the way, makes no allowance for exceptions. At least Lord Carlile and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had the grace to say that there would be exceptions.
	Intuitively and naturally, somewhere around two or three years is the norm. As a matter of policy, unlimited, indefinite control orders are probably not appropriate. As I said this time last year, I hope that with all the other things that we are doing, we are moving towards even further diminution in terms of the number of control orders used.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was churlish to say that there has been no progress on intercept as evidence. Given that people far greater than I have been looking at this thing for about 20 years, there has been enormous progress in the past year. We are not simply setting up another review but setting up a cross-party implementation process to go through all the hoops that Chilcot talks about, none of which is straightforward, to see whether we can make further progress.
	The same applies to post-charge questioning. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will attest, there are already very limited circumstances under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where there is scope for post-charge questioning. What we are trying to do in the Counter-Terrorism Bill goes way beyond that. I say again, not blithely, that there must be safeguards in that regard too, and a full look at the law; none the less we have moved in that direction. I hope that, with what we are doing in terms of incitementthe hon. Member for Beaconsfield also referred to thatand other subsequent offences such as acts preparatory, on which people have been convicted, this will all add up to less and less scope for the utilisation of control orders, which everyone in the Chamber agrees are not the most satisfactory mechanism.
	Sir John Chilcot, among others, said that intercept as evidence does not obviate the need for control orders. Our contention is that even with, we hope, a diminishing number of such orders, there will still be a narrowly defined grey area where there is sufficient information but not sufficient evidence on individuals to warrant the sort of control
	 It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker  put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.16(1)  (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).

Question put:
	 The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 60.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

Social Security

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

Mike O'Brien: I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
	This year's uprating adds almost 4 billion to Government spending and reinforces our commitment to build an active welfare state and tackle poverty by helping those most in need. The uprating order will increase most national insurance benefits by the retail prices index, which was 3.9 per cent. in September 2007, and increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi index, which is the retail prices index excluding rent, mortgage interest, council tax and depreciation, which was 2.3 per cent. on the same date. The reason the latter is used is that housing-related costs are dealt with in other benefits.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. He has outlined how benefits will increase by 2.3 or 3.9 per cent. However, the Government say that public sector increases of above 2 per cent. will be inflationarya bogus argument in my viewso can he explain why the increase in benefits will not also be inflationary? My view is that neither would be inflationary, but could he explain the distinction that the Government have made?

Mike O'Brien: We have a primary aim of helping the poorest in our society and ensuring that they do not get poorer. They are the people on the lowest incomes. When inflation rises, it is important that we should seek at least to maintainor, where we can, improvethe situation of the poorest. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says that, for him as a Conservative, it does not matter by how much people's pay rises. I suspect that those on his Front Bench will take a different view.

David Gauke: I will not detain the House too long on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the reason the Government are refusing to increase public sector pay is that they are running out of money, owing to the state of the public finances. All I am saying is that it is bogus to argue that the reason is to do with inflation. The very fact that the Government are, rightly, prepared to increase benefits in line with the RPI demonstrates that the argument does not work.

Mike O'Brien: I am afraid that it does not demonstrate that at all. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that pay rises have no impact on inflation and that inflation does not matter, he is taking us back to the days of Thatcher, Major and roaring high inflation. That just shows that the Tories have learned nothing in the past 20 years.
	Let me return to the orders before us. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the amount by which contracted-out defined-benefit pension schemes must increase members' guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997. Where the annual increase in the retail prices index exceeds 3 per cent., the guaranteed minimum pensions indexation requirement is capped at that level under primary legislation. This year's order therefore provides for an increase of 3 per cent.
	The order provides an extra 2.8 billion to pensioners. This underlines our commitment to today's pensioners. In real terms, the Government have done more for older people than any Government before them. Today, for the first time in a period of sustained economic growth, pensioners are less likely to be living in poverty than the population as a whole. Today's pensioners are, on average, 1,500 a year better off than they were under the last Conservative Government. We have focused on the poorest pensioners, and they are now 2,200 a year better off.

John Butterfill: I am slightly puzzled by that assertion, because the number of pensioners going bankrupt has more than doubled in the past five years, from just 900 in 2002 to 7,900. How does that fit with the Minister's assertion that pensioners are doing rather better than most?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the figures that I have just given the House show the increase that pensioners have had. Many pensioners are on very low incomes, but they are not in the position that he has identified. I accept that some people on low incomes go bankrupt; housing and other issues can lead to that happening. However, we are talking about helping the poorest third of pensioners to improve their lot in our society and reducing the level of pensioner poverty in this country. I repeat that the poorest third of pensioners are now 2,200 a year better off. I do not think that there is any real doubt that that is the case.
	We are spending 11 billion more this year than if we had merely continued the policies of the previous Conservative Government. As a result, pensioner poverty has reduced by over a third since 1997. That is a real achievement, of which Labour Members can be very proud. However, we must do more. We have been reducing pensioner poverty, and we treat that as a high priority, but our policies need to take more people out of poverty than we have done up to now.

Danny Alexander: The Minister is right to highlight the issue of pensioner poverty. One contributory factor is that between 1.1 million and 1.7 million pensioners do not claim the pension credit to which they are entitled. What is the Minister doing to raise the number of people claiming such benefits, given the complexity of the means-tested system that the Government have put in place?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I shall come to that matter in a moment. It is one that has greatly concerned me, and I hope that I shall be able to provide him with some reassurance.
	Pension credit ensures that no single pensioner need live on less than 119.05 a week. That will increase to 124.05 from April. However, I want to ensure that everyone receives the benefits to which they are entitled, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Where we can make improvements further to simplify and increase uptake, we will.
	In my uprating statement last December, I was able to outline an important package of measures further to simplify the state pension system. These changes will make the system less confusing, less intrusive and more transparent. In particular, they will automate council tax and housing benefit assessments, enabling thousands more pensioners to receive those important benefits with the minimum of fuss. And we will do more.
	Yesterday I announced detailed plans to deal with exactly the issue that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) has raised. We are seeking to increase the uptake of pension credit. We recognise that there are those who, for a variety of reasons, do not claim. Many just do not think that they will be eligible; others do not realise how easy it is to find out about their entitlement. Pensioners can currently claim up to five benefits from one telephone call. The amounts of money involved can be substantial, with average awards of pension credit of around 50 per week.

Chris Ruane: rose

Anne Snelgrove: rose

Mike O'Brien: I will give way in a moment.
	We are working jointly with Help the Aged, Age Concern, Citizens Advice and other partners to get this message across: If you are entitled, this money is rightfully yours and we're here to help you get it. We will target the areas where take-up is low, using intermediaries and local channels and joining up with other organisations to create innovative communications strategies. For example, we are working with the Scottish Executive to extend pilots that will test methods for increasing take-up. In Birmingham, we will send out more than 500,000 targeted mailings and advertise through local radio, GPs' surgeries, libraries and post offices. I will be writing to all Members of Parliament shortly to outline our plans and show how hon. Members can help. This will make pension credit even more accessible and get money to those who are most in need.

Chris Ruane: I am pleased to hear that the Minister will use intermediaries to help with take-up campaigns, but may I ask whether such campaigns will include, in addition to pension credit, attendance allowance, which can make a massive difference to spending power of between 30 and 60 a week? Will attendance allowance be included, and if the Department is working with intermediaries, will financial help be available for them to do that additional work?

Mike O'Brien: Attendance allowance is not one of the five benefits that we are particularly targeting, but people can be referred to departmental centres where they can get advice and will be able to get attendance allowance. May I add that getting that allowance is now much easier than in the past, and we have sought to improve the speed at which people can get it? When applications need to be made, it is important to get on and make them quickly. Some recent family experience of trying to do that for a relative showed that it can indeed happen pretty quicklyand I do not believe that those involved knew that I was the responsible Minister!
	At the request of Age Concern and Help the Agedthey are anxious to work with us in the run-up to October, when some of these changes will occurwe are changing the way in which benefits are accessed. We want to ensure that we get as many people as possible on to pension credit in particular. Up to October this year, pensioners will be able to receive up to one year's backdated pension credit. That can amount to a lot of money for often very poor pensioners and it can help them to improve their standard of living. We have talked to the relevant agencies, which are very happy to work with us, so I shall not offer funding when we already have volunteers happy to do so.

Anne Snelgrove: I commend the Minister on the initiatives that he has just mentioned. He said that he was going to write to MPs, so may I give him an example of how MPs can work proactively with Age Concern? In January, I held a joint advice surgery with one of Age Concern's advice workers, which was specifically targeted on senior citizens. It was extremely helpful to me and to the senior citizens and it enabled Age Concern to reach a different group from the people it usually reaches. We all thought that it was a great success and we intend to repeat it. Would my hon. and learned Friend consider referring to that example in his letter to MPs?

Mike O'Brien: I find that to be a very good example and I will certainly consider doing so. It sounds like just the sort of initiative that MPs could use to help put more pensioners in a position to deal with problems relating to lack of income.

Ben Wallace: I am aware that the Government are very keen on targets and the Minister has already said that he is keen to target areas where uptake has been low. Does he have a target in mind for the level of uptake that he is aiming for?

Mike O'Brien: Our basic aim is to get as many pensioners as we possibly can to take up the rights to which they are entitled. The money is there, so we are able to cover the costs. Getting pensioners to make a telephone call to one of the helplines is basically all it takes: we would like a 100 per cent. take-up if we could get it, but we do not have it at the moment. If we could get pensioners to make those telephone calls, it would be very helpful; people are waiting on the end of the line to receive them. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that in that sense there is no specific target percentage; the objective is to get everyone signed up.
	The change that I announced last December should help us substantially in that regard. One of the problems we have faced is that pensioners often feel that they do not want to fill in the forms, they do not want other people to know their business or their private information and they perhaps do not like accepting charity. But one thing that pensioners certainly do not like doing is paying council tax.  [Interruption.] Well, nobody likes paying tax, as Conservative Members are pointing out from a sedentary position. It is probably true that nobody likes paying taxes, but we need to pay them. However, after October we will change how we make available those access points to benefit.
	Rather than a pensioner having to make a telephone call, receive a form, sign the form and send it on to the local authority to access some help with council tax, we are aiming to automate all that. The pensioner will make one telephone call and the Department will be able to do all the work. All the Department will then have to do is send a letter to the pensioner saying, It is done. It will also send a letter to the local authority, or probably an e-mail in this example, saying, This now has to be put into payment. Some of the various pensioner groups have been asking for that for a long time. It is what I announced last December, and we will bring it into effect in October. That will require evening up some benefits. We will pay for that by reducing the back payment of pension credit as from October to three months rather than a year. We are finding the funding for that, and as a result we hope to lift about 50,000 pensioners who are in poverty out of it.

Anne Main: rose

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I think that there is a queue behind me.

Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agree that many pensioners who have never claimed benefits in their life see the pension credit and income support as handouts, and the basic pension as an entitlement? Should we not be working to ensure that the entitlement is increased and that those benefits that are seen as handouts are incorporated into the basic pension?

Mike O'Brien: I have a lot of sympathy with that position, and if our resources were infinite we would be able to do that. We are trying to move towards the point at which we have to rely less on means-testing, but at the same time our objective has been to help the poorest pensioners first and to remove the scourge of pensioner poverty, remembering that, back in 1997, the poorest pensioners were relying on 69 a week. We have increased that amount substantially, and as from April it is going up to 124, which is a big, important change.
	We are lifting pensioners out of poverty, but that has meant means-testing. I share some of the concerns about means-testing that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), but as resources are limited, it is a way to ensure that those resources are targeted on the poorest people. With all those caveats, I hope that he accepts that response.

Anne Main: I was interested to hear that, under the automated system, everything will be put in place by one telephone call. I am sure that that is laudable in respect of those who are eligible to claim those benefits, but, given the high profile case of a lady who made 200 telephone calls and swindled 20,000 of child benefit, I would hope that some checks and balances are being put in the system that the Minister has just announced to us, to ensure that people who are claiming those benefits are entitled to do so. Otherwise, if it really takes just one telephone call, we will have another scam in which the fraudster out thereI am not saying that any of my pensioners will be doing thisbecomes used to milking the system.

Mike O'Brien: A few more checks are made, rather than just a telephone call. These days, we do not have to rely on a telephone call to make checks on people. We want to ensure that people are able to provide us with information about their various sources of income. Today, most pensioners rely not just on the basic state pension plus pension credit, but on a number of other sources, such as savings or a second pension, which many people have.
	We must take it into accountthis is a major part of the work done by the Pension Servicethat checks must be carried out on the financial circumstances of individuals. When dealing with millions of people, there are always a few who try to milk the system and defraud it, so it is important that we put in place the appropriate checks. That is what we have done. Indeed, it has been done particularly successfully in recent years as we have targeted those who might seek to defraud the system. What we are doing will build on the hard work of the Pension Service.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister says that pensioners should make telephone calls themselves, but how about some proactivity? Could the Department not target the category of pensioners in greatest need?

Mike O'Brien: We are sending mailshots to about half a million people in Birmingham in an attempt to persuade them to take up their entitlements. However, we have experienced problems with the take-up of, in particular, pension credit, although we have written to some of those who we think should be taking it up. Our information, limited as it is, suggests that people living in certain areas may well be on low incomes, but although we have sent them up to four mailshots a year, we are not achieving the take-up we would like, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests by means of signals that telephone calls might be appropriate. We rely on pensioners' telephoning the hotline. Our objective is not to start making what would amount to unsolicited calls to pensioners, and I would be rather cautious about introducing such a procedure.
	In 2007-08, to date, there have been over 200,000 successful new applications for pension credit, and we are on track to surpass the target of 235,000 for the year. This year 680,000 home visits to hard-to-reach customers have been conducted through partner organisations, offering pensioners an holistic service that takes account of all their needs, including benefit eligibility. I am confident that our record in combating pensioner poverty is good, and that the measures I have announced will help thousands more pensioners to move out of poverty.
	We will also uprate benefits and allowances for the working-age population. The order provides for an extra 630 million for disabled people and carers, and an extra 420 million for those of working age. Child-related allowances paid in the income-related benefits will be increased in parallel with child tax credits. That is intended to ensure that families entitled to such benefits see the full value of increases in the tax credits. Next April, the allowance paid for a child who is dependent on the income-related benefits will increase by 5.14 a week to 52.59, a rise of almost 11 per cent. That shows our commitment to providing financial support for families on low and moderate incomes. Tax credits currently benefit nearly 6 million families and 10 million children.
	As in previous years, the uprating provides an opportunity for us to deal with anomalies and make the system simpler. From next April, the single-person rate for income support and jobseeker's allowance will be the same for all 16 to 24-year-olds. For the relatively small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who claim, that amounts to an increase of 12.30, raising their weekly benefit from 35.65 to 47.95. The change will give extra help to a small number of vulnerable teenagers, as well as simplifying the benefit structure.
	This year's uprating strengthens our pledge for an active welfare state that gives people an opportunity to return to the labour market and contribute to our society, and provides the security of an essential safety net for those who fall on hard times; but we can never be complacent. Our welfare state must continue to foster independence by giving people the support that they need, not so that they can become dependent but precisely so that they do not. Our goal is a welfare state that gives a hand up rather than a handout, and a way out of worklessness, not worklessness as a way of life. Our goals are ambitiouswe want to remove 1 million people from incapacity benefit, and to enable 300,000 more single parents and 1 million more older people to workbut we are building on a platform of strength and stability. We can talk with real confidence about what has been achieved in the last 10 years: more jobs, more skills, more opportunity and less poverty. Since 1997, we have had the longest period of sustained growth in a generation. The number of people in work is at a record level: 29.4 million. Since 1997, the number of people on benefits has fallen by 1 million. The new deal has helped more than 1.7 million people into work.

Chris Ruane: And that is with the minimum wage.

Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend says, that is with a minimum wage in place for those on low incomes. He will remember that under previous Governments people were paid, quite legally, hourly wages in the region of 1.20. We are now dealing not only with poverty in terms of the welfare state, but with poverty issues where people are in work.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) says from a sedentary position: Comrade. Well, I am pleased to see that he has now joined the ranks of other comradesand it also appears that he has raised his fist.

Michael Penning: rose

Mike O'Brien: I thought the hon. Gentleman might protest. I want to make some progress, but as I mentioned him I shall give way.

Michael Penning: Far be it from me to spoil the Minister's fun, but as he might know, I was a member of a trade union 20 years ago when some of his Back-Bench colleagues were not.

Mike O'Brien: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is a member of a trade union, and by the sound of it, and on the evidence of his apparent fist-waving, he has not lost some of his background, so I suspect that those who sit on his party's Front Bench had better watch their backs.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask Members to refrain from making sedentary remarks and to concentrate on [Interruption.] I hasten to add that I did not apportion blame; I merely referred to sedentary remarks.

Mike O'Brien: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We are dealing with some very serious issues. It is right that we exchange pleasantries and conduct our proceedings with good humour, but some of these issues are of great importance for some very poor people in our society, and we must get them right. That is why it is enormously important that the record shows that we have reduced child poverty by 600,000 since 1998. We should be proud of that. Such achievements have helped millions climb out of poverty, and they serve to contrast vividly with the poverty of thinking on the Opposition Benchesand the creation of millions of unemployed under previous Tory Governments.
	My commitment today is that we will continue to build on the progress we have made to date, ensuring that we create in this country a welfare state that is rooted in social justice and provides a vital safety net. Those who can work should work, and we must put in place the mechanism to ensure that they do so; but those who genuinely cannot work must be provided with the help and safety net they need.

Anne Snelgrove: My hon. and learned Friend's comments on lone parents going back to work are right, but is it not the case that 12.5 per cent. more lone parents are in work now than in 1997, and that work is the best way of lifting children out of poverty?

Mike O'Brien: That is absolutely right. It is important that we continue to assist lone parents to move out of poverty and into work and to ensure that their children get a better future. That is one of the Department's key objectives. Our aim of providing help to lone parents has involved putting in a lot of resources, but it has been successful to date and we need to improve further still our ability to help lone parents. We are reducing the age level at which we want lone parents to move into employment, because we want their children to have the benefit of having parents who have jobs and who are able to lift their futureto raise the eyes of their children so that they can see a future of hope and of jobs and of a route out of poverty.

David Gauke: When I looked into this subject last year, we had the lowest rate of lone-parent employment in Europe. Is that still the case?

Mike O'Brien: Far more lone parents are in employment than was the case when this Government came into office, and we are ensuring that we get more lone parents into work. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine and compare our record with that of the previous Government, he would find that his partyI accept that he was not in Parliament at that stagehas something to be ashamed of whereas our party has something of which to be very proud. We will be even more pleased by the time of the next election because we will have helped even more lone parents into work.
	The cost of uprating benefits for next year is nearly 4 billion, more than two thirds of which will go to pensioners. Together with the further measures to increase pension credit take-up that I announced recently, the money represents a substantial further investment in an active welfare state, social justice, reducing poverty and helping those in need. I commend these orders to the House.

James Clappison: Conservative Members welcome the opportunity to debate a subject of great importance to many of our constituents. We share many of the Minister's general objectives, although we perhaps do not entirely agree with his narrative.

Mike O'Brien: I must seize the moment, because the hon. Gentleman says that he shares the objectives. Does he share the objective of our child poverty reduction target? Does he have such a target?

James Clappison: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going over ground that we went over during questions on Monday. Of more material significance to this debate is whether the Government believe that they will hit their own targeta long period of silence will follow my saying that. I will come back to that point and give him another chance to intervene. Perhaps he will be able to tell us then whether the Government will hit their own targets.
	I do not entirely share the hon. and learned Gentleman's narrative. I am not sure that many of my constituents, particularly those who are saving for a pension, those who are part of a pension scheme or those who are in receipt of a pension would regard their finances with the same immense satisfaction as he seemed to feel about them. I shall say more about that in a moment.
	Conservatives recognise that today's debate is being held against a background of renewed impetus in the wider debate about how to help our fellow citizens who struggle to get by, particularly our pensioners. I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) implicitly paid tribute to the work that Conservatives have done, as did the hon. and learned Gentleman in his remarks about lone parents. I pay tribute to the groundbreaking work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and his social justice commission. We regard this matter as being of the utmost priority. We want to help the workless to get back into work, where possible, and we want to find the best possible ways of enabling people to avoid poverty, including poverty later in life. We recognise the strong connection between worklessness and children growing up in poverty, and that it leads to fewer chances in life for those children.

Anne Snelgrove: rose

Adrian Bailey: rose

James Clappison: I shall give way in a moment.
	My next line was going to be the answer to a question put in an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), to that answer being that Britain has the highest proportion of children in workless families of anywhere in Europe. If either the hon. Member for Swindon or the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) wants to deny that, I give them the chance to do so.

Anne Snelgrove: When I became a councillor in Berkshire in 1993, I was concerned about the huge number of peoplelone parents with children and otherswho were on incapacity benefit in my constituency. Doctors were putting such people on incapacity benefit because the benefits system was so low. The hon. Gentleman's Government tripled the number of people on incapacity benefits between 1979 and 1997an appalling target was hit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down this road, I ought to remind hon. Members that this order is about the uprating of benefits, so perhaps remarks will be confined to that.

James Clappison: I was trying to set the scene for the details, and I shall come to those now. There is a provision for uprating incapacity benefits, so the salient answer to point made by the hon. Member for South Swindon is that it is likely, given the Government's wretched record in getting people off long-term incapacity benefit, that many of the people she describes are still on that benefit. That is notwithstanding the fact that, overall

Anne Snelgrove: rose

James Clappison: Perhaps the hon. Lady will contain herself until I come to that part of my speech, bearing in mind your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister pulls a face, but he or one of his colleagues told me in a written answer last year that since 2000 the number of people who have been on incapacity benefit for five years or more has risen by 270,000. That is the problem with long-term incapacity benefit

Anne Snelgrove: rose

James Clappison: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, given that there is an uprating of long-term incapacity benefit and the Minister did not touch on it very muchalthough I am not surprised about that.

Anne Snelgrove: What is important is what the Government are doing now. I pay tribute to Jobcentre Plus in my constituency, which has signed up more than 100 employers to work with people on incapacity benefit. It is very important to get them off that benefit and the Government are the first to tackle that issue. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, because his Government did nothing

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall repeat my remarks. This debate is about the uprating of social security benefits and pensions, rather than the much wider scope, however interesting and tempting that might be.

James Clappison: I shall now follow your strictures very seriously, Madam Deputy Speaker, and turn to the details of the order.
	The Minister mentioned a global figure for the uprating of 4 million. I have to ask about that, given the way in which things have gone missing recently. The Government Actuary's Department reported, on the basis of the draft uprating order, that the estimated increase in benefit payments in 2008-09 is 2,663 million, which is some 2.6 billion, not the 4 billion that the Minister mentioned. I have been guided by a helpful note from the Library. The Minister pulls a face again: if he wants to give me some better information on what the Government Actuary's Department said on the basis of the draft, I should be happy to receive it, as well as an account of the seemingly missing 1.4 billion. I ask because, today especially, it is important to scrutinise every item of Government expenditure, including those that seem to get lost.
	Whether measured by the retail prices index or the Rossi index, the indexation reflects greater inflationary pressure. We understand from the details of the explanatory memorandum that the benefits indexed by reference to the RPI will rise by 3.9 per cent., and that benefits subject to the Rossi indexRPI less housing costswill rise by 2.3 per cent. In order to form a view of the order, it is important to compare that with the position in previous years. The indexation compared to RPI last year was 3.6 per cent., and it was 2.7 per cent. in the year before that. The recipients of those benefits are therefore subject to a rising inflationary pressure.
	That rising trend is underlined by last week's bleak economic assessment by the Governor of the Bank of England. The Minister pulls another face at the word bleak, but I suggest he pay heed to the Governor's warning of a rise in inflation that is likely to be so steep that he will probably have to write another letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why inflation has risen so far above its target. We have to bear that warning in mind because, as a result of those inflationary pressures, families face a genuine reduction in their standard of living, unless we make the necessary provision.
	That has implications, of course, for the families who are subject to the uprating in this order. They can be vulnerable to the inflationary pressure described by the Governor of the Bank of England, especially as he specifically highlighted the higher level of energy and food prices, which form a higher proportion of the budgets of families on low incomes and pensioners. It would appear that inflation has now risen to a seven month high with a jump last month and that fuel inflation, in particular, is running at 19.3 per cent., which is the highest since records began to be kept in 1997. That is a very high level for fuel inflation.
	Some estimates put the average household bill for gas and electricity close to 1,000. We also see alarming reports about the proportion of pensioner budgets that are spent on those items and on council tax, a subject of concern to many pensioners to which I shall return later. We certainly need to keep that well in mind. It is a source of anxiety for pensioners and those close to retirement. One survey from a reputable source recently showed, perhaps in contrast to the rosy picture painted by the Minister, that inflation movements are the biggest retirement worry for people nearing life after work.

Adrian Bailey: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. The issues he raises are obviously of some concern. Will he assure me that his party, in the unlikely event of it being in government, would be certain to guarantee matching this Government's uprating under the proceeds of growth rules? On the basis of his argument, will he assure me that his party would put in extra to allay the concerns he has expressed?

James Clappison: It is always a mistake to give cast-iron assurances in politics. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has so much interest in the next Government, and can give him the cast-iron assurance that it is beyond peradventure that I will not be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the next Conservative Government. I can assure him that ours will be a Government based on sound finance.
	Through the order, we are seeing an increase in the council tax benefit received by pensioner households. We welcome any measures that will help pensioners to receive the council tax benefits to which they are entitled. Howeverthe hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) touched on this important pointalmost 40 per cent. of pensioners who are entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it. Take-up of council tax benefit has fallen by 12 per cent. since 1997, which might interest the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West.
	The take-up of housing benefit by pensioners has also fallen. The failure to take up benefits, subject to these orders, will have an impact on the lives of pensioners because seven out of 10 pensioners who are entitled to housing benefit but do not claim it are living in relative poverty. That is part of a wider problem of failure to take up benefits and entitlements among pensioner households. Part of the problem lies in the relationship between pensioners and means-tested benefits. The Minister touched on some of the reasons why pensioners do not take up means-tested benefits. Of course, questions relating to pensioners and means-tested benefits have long been recognised. We all know that many pensioners have a certain attitude towards means-tested benefits. As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) mentioned, other pensioners find it complicated to claim means-tested benefits.
	The Minister talked about the historical picture. As he was pleased to talk about the 1990s, perhaps he will remember the pledge given by our Prime Minister when he became shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1994. He told the Labour party conference that year:
	I want the next Labour government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never yet been achieved, the elimination of the massive means testing now imposed on the elderly.
	Today, almost half of pensioners45 per cent.are subject to means-testing. Whether that is a massive number I shall leave it to others to judge, but it is beyond peradventure that means-testing is very much in evidence in the pension credit system set up by the Government. Once again, there is a serious problem of lack of take-up.

Anne Snelgrove: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his Government increased VAT on fuel17.5 per cent. on heating for pensioners? The Labour Government kept our promise to reduce it.

James Clappison: We could go round and round the individual changes and I would soon be out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I am happy to rest my case on the fact that the Conservative Government left in place a strong pension systema strong system of pension provisionthat was recognised at the time as the envy of Europe.

Anne Main: I am well aware of the fact that some people would rather talk about history than the present day. On low take-up of council tax benefit, I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that areas such as Hertfordshire, and indeed St. Albans, had such a poor settlement that their council tax will inevitably rise, which will hit the very pensioners who do not claim the benefit and struggle to pay their bills.

James Clappison: Council tax benefit is a salient point in relation to the order. I have to tell the hon. Member for South Swindon that many pensioners are recognising the shortfall in their finances given what they have to pay for fuel and food, as well as the high council tax increases they will have to pay. The situation is difficult for many pensioners and I think she will find that few of them regard their finances with the same degree of satisfaction as Labour Members [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order

Anne Snelgrove: rose

James Clappison: I do not know which is coming first, Madam Deputy Speakerthe stricture or the intervention. I shall take the intervention and wait to see what happens.

Anne Snelgrove: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, but that is about all. The Labour Government have been more generous to pensioners than any previous Government. Fewer pensioners are living in poverty under Labour than under any previous Tory Government.

James Clappison: I am aware of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief.
	Many pensioners in my constituency and in many othersperhaps even the constituency of the hon. Member for South Swindonwanted a general election last autumn to test these matters. The sooner the issues can be put to the test, the better. I am sure the hon. Lady wants the same thing.

Dave Watts: Change the subject.

James Clappison: I shall stay on the subject of pension credit because it is extremely important. I am not sure whether the Minister, in his fairly lengthy opening remarks, outlined the full extent of the problem of pension credit take-up. According to a written parliamentary answer of 19 October 2007, total pension credit take-up in 2005-06 was between only 60 and 69 per cent. by case load, and between 70 and 78 per cent. by expenditure. That meant that between 1.7 million and 1.74 million pensioners entitled to pension credit were not claiming it and that between 1.6 billion and 2.5 billion of pension credit was unclaimed.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the advantageous situation for pensioners in Scotland? Their council tax has been frozen this year thanks to the change from a Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive to an SNP Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is testing my patience and going very far wide of the order.

James Clappison: Perhaps we can discuss that general subject on another occasion.
	The important point in respect of the order is that up to 330,000 people were not claiming the guaranteed part of the creditbetween 70 and 80 per cent. of the case load. That is extremely serious and we must surmise that many of those people are in a grave financial situation.
	On the savings element of pension creditthe Minister pulls a face again; he will pull an even worse one when I tell him thisfewer than half of those entitled to it claim it. If he wants to gainsay that, I am happy for him to do so.

Mike O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the pension credit. If he listened to my speech, as I am sure he did, he will know that I have just announced that we are working with Help the Aged and Age Concern to increase the take-up of pension credit. In December, we announced proposals that will lift about 50,000 more pensioners out of poverty and get them registered for pension credit as well as for a series of other benefits.

James Clappison: It gives me no great pleasure to recollect that I was one of those who served on the Committee that considered the State Pension Credit Bill during its passage through the House in 2002. If I had said to Ministers then that six years later their system would be so complicated and that so little of the money would be getting through to pensioners that those Ministers would come back before the House to plead for help from various worthy and important interest groups, and even from Members of Parliament, they would have laughed me out of court. We were told at the time that it was a wonderful system that people would find easy to use.

Chris Ruane: rose

James Clappison: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman debated that Bill and is going to tell me that I am wrong, but I will happily give way to him.

Chris Ruane: Can the hon. Gentleman remind us what the take-up of pension credit was under his party's Government?

James Clappison: As the credit was created in 2002, I think that it is within the wit of the hon. Gentleman to know that it was created by the present Government, as a way of redirecting resources.

Chris Ruane: You did not have it.

James Clappison: Well, the serious problem is that there are 330,000 pensioners who do not have it today, and that is what we should be debating.
	I noticed the words that the Minister used in his opening remarks. He said that he wanted to see more people claim pension credit, and that the Government seek to increase pension credit take-up. The fact is that the Government have missed their target of paying pension credit to 3 million households. They should have hit that target two years ago, but in 2005-06 some 2.65 million households were in receipt of the credit. It is against that background that we should view the statistic that today in Britain, notwithstanding the satisfaction that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and his colleagues feel about the matter, 2 million pensioners live in poverty.
	The Conservatives join the Minister in the objective of improving the lives of those pensioners and getting through to them the entitlements that they should receive. The National Audit Office estimates that increasing the take-up of pension credit by 10 per cent. would lift an extra 100,000 pensioners out of poverty, while a similar increase in the rate of take-up of housing and council tax benefits would move 130,000 out of poverty. We share the general objective of moving those pensioners out of povertywe want to see that happenbut the problem is that the Government's present measures, including the uprating order, will not make it happen.
	I remember the Government being warned when they introduced the pension credit that they were relying on a complex system. Indeed, at one point we were told that they seemed to be relying on the assumption that working people would not understand the system, as if they did they would choose not to save. To be fair, the Minister acknowledged today as well as in his statement on 5 December some of the problems with pension credit take-up.
	As a general principle, we welcome any help that can be given to pensioners and others who struggle with the complexity of the system. Ministers have very fairly admitted, finally, that pensioners find the forms confusing, and the Government are trying to put in place a different system to help them. With that in mind, how does the Minister propose to monitor the effects of the changes that he described today and on previous occasions, particularly changes relating to the claiming of pension credit? What is his most recent estimate of take-up of pension credit, and what expectations do the Government have on that front? As a matter of interest, to put his good intentions to the test, what estimate of pension credit take-up has the Chancellor of the Exchequer used in his spending plans for the years to come? What is the Government's estimate of pension credit take-up for those purposes?

Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. He has rightly given the Minister a list of questions to answer, but if he is not happy with the way the Government are administering and allocating resources to pension credit, will he say how much additional funding his party would allocate to get it to the level he would be happy with?

James Clappison: I was hoping the hon. Gentleman might throw some light on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes the take-up will be. As I said, we believe the system should be as simple as possible. We warned the Government against the complexity that they put in place in 2002, which makes it so difficult for pensioners to claim these credits. We will help pensioners in any way we can, both as individual MPs and as the Opposition, but we will not take the blame for the complex system that the Government put in place, when we warned them against it.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is rightly drawing attention to the complexity of the benefits system. It is astonishing, therefore, that the report to which he referred earlier from his party's social justice commission did not make a single proposal about benefit simplification. It simply recommended that the whole issue of benefits should be dealt with in another report. Does he himself have any particular proposal on benefits that should be simplified?

James Clappison: I will happily supply the hon. Gentleman with a copy of our proposals in that regard. He knows that we have had debates on the Floor of the House, we have raised and highlighted the issue on many occasions, and we have been complaining for a long time about the complexity of the benefits system and the hundreds of different forms that pensioners have to fill in.
	I turn to another aspect of complexity on which it would be useful to have the most up-to-date statistical summary from the Governmentsome of the issues relating to the order. We understand that the problems that Government Departments experienced last year in respect of data transferI am sure the Minister is familiar with those, as are other hon. Membersapparently led to a review by his Department's Permanent Secretary of how data are transferred. As a result, a temporary suspension of the movement of data was introduced.
	That has meant, among other things, that the Department's quarterly statistical summary, which should have been published on 13 February, was not released. There may have been a statistician out there who was prevented from giving his or her ideal Valentine's day gift on 13 February, but we need an up-to-date statistical picture of the work of the Department. Can the Minister say how long the review will last? Can he give us an assurance that the information that was not published on 13 February will eventually be published, and can he give us some indication when that is likely to be?
	We know that there are many administrative problems affecting the Government in general and the Department in particular, but we would like to see statistics published as soon as possible, so that we will have an opportunity to monitor some of the aspects about which we have been asked many questions this afternoon by those on the Government Benches.
	On the subject of administrative problems in the Department, I would be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on the extent of error in the Department's benefit payments. The benefits uprating order is important in that respect. In a written answer to me on 17 September last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), told me that the error in benefit payments had risen from a value of 1.1 million in 2000-01 to 1.9 million in 2005-06. It has risen for every year in that period. Can the Minister give us any more up-to-date figures on that? Can he explain the increase? Can he say how much is because of customer error and how much is down to official error, and what steps are being taken to reduce the loss?
	A number of the payments specified in the schedules to the uprating order relate to children as, for example, in the case of payments for dependent children in income support, where there will be an increase from 47.45 to 52.59 each week. We need to see how those and other upratings in the order fit into the overall picture on child poverty. Some 2.8 million children now live in poverty before housing costs are taken into account, and 3.8 million do so after housing costs. It may interest Labour Members to know that the number of children living in poverty is on the increase: in 2006, it rose by 100,000 before housing costs and by 200,000 after housing costs.

Chris Ruane: rose

James Clappison: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he accepts that child poverty is on the increase and if he can give us an explanation for that.

Chris Ruane: This is the third time the hon. Gentleman has given way, and I thank him for that.
	The hon. Gentleman is critical of what the Government have done about child poverty. May I remind him of the words of the shadow Minister with responsibility for family welfare, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller)? She said:
	As all speakers have acknowledged, aspects of child poverty have improved significantly.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 416WH.]
	Furthermore, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) said:
	Good work is being done by the Government through Sure Start and other means to bring lone parents into economic activity.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 407WH.]
	The party of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has recognised those things, but he has been very curmudgeonly in his assessment of what we are doing.

James Clappison: I was not being curmudgeonly, but simply citing a salutary statistic that will not be entirely answered by the sort of point just made by the hon. Gentleman. Despite everything that we have been told, child poverty is on the increase and the number rose by 100,000 before housing costs and 200,000 after them.

Mike O'Brien: Under this Government, child poverty has been reduced by 600,000. As a result of the recent Budget announcements, 300,000 more children are likely to be lifted out of poverty.

James Clappison: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Government keep missing their targets in that regard, and they are not prepared to state that they will meet their targets. It was clear that in the past year, notwithstanding the Government's targets, child poverty has risen. Against that background, we need to see how this uprating fits into the child poverty picture.
	As I said, the Government missed their target last year. We apprehend from Monday's Question Time that they are not on track to achieve their target of halving child poverty by 2010. The Minister evinced some interest in the issue in an early intervention on me. Now that he has had time to think about it, can he tell us where the Government are with regard to that target? If they are not going to achieve it by 2010and we do not think that they are, given the backgroundwhen do they believe they will?

Danny Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: rose

James Clappison: I have been generous in giving way, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has indeed been generous in giving way. He is making an important point about how the Government are way off meeting their child poverty target. The latest assessments suggest that the target will not be met until a number of decades beyond 2020. I thought the Conservative party was signed up to the objective of abolishing child poverty by 2020. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that?

James Clappison: We have set out our objectives. The hon. Gentleman has actually been rather kind to the Government; I have been accused of attacking them. He has said that the target will not be met until decades to come, whereas I am simply asking when it will be met. The hon. Gentleman and I share an interest in the response.

Adrian Bailey: rose

James Clappison: I have given way a lot, and time is limited [Interruption.] I am being criticised by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, to whom I have given way already. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West still has a burning question later, I shall give way then. I want to raise several other important issues arising from the order.

Adrian Bailey: rose

James Clappison: I think the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to recognise that I have given way quite a bit, including to him.
	I turn now to whether the operating changes relate to people and families living in poverty and severe poverty. According to a paper issued last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, relative poverty in the United Kingdom rose in 2005-06an increase of 400,000 before housing costs and 600,000 after housing costs are taken into account. The institute says:
	The rise in relative poverty is a direct consequence of the relatively low growth in low incomes between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
	Will the Minister give us his view on that and tell us where these benefit upratings fit into the general picture? There are important questions about not only relative poverty but severe povertythat is, people living on 40 per cent. of contemporary median income. Again according to the IFS, the risk of severe poverty increased between the years 1996-97 and 2005-06. Will the Minister tell us where these benefit upratings fit into the picture, and is he prepared to give us any forecast on severe poverty?
	Strange as it may seem when one is talking about relative poverty and severe poverty, many of those in receipt of these benefit upratings will be subject to a fairly heavy burden of taxationor what will be so for them. According to one survey, the poorest fifth of households pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than any other group. Obviously, quite a lot of that will be accounted for by indirect taxation, but can the Minister give us any idea how many of those in receipt of these upratings are paying direct taxationthat is, income tax or national insurance contributions?
	The underlying aim must be, wherever possible, to move people from the benefits system into work and to reduce the number of people subject to the upratings in the order. Let us take one example. Certain parts of the order increase payments to those in receipt of long-term incapacity benefits. I have already given the House the statistics on long-term incapacity benefits, which are striking. More than 55 per cent. of incapacity benefit claimants have been in receipt of incapacity benefits for more than five years and, under this Government, those on incapacity benefit for more than two years are more likely to die or retire than to get a job. There are also, strangely, several hundred thousand people under the age of 35 claiming incapacity benefit500,000 altogether, including some who are very young. Will the Minister share with us any views he has on the incidence of long-term incapacity benefit claimants and draw the connection between getting at least some of those people off incapacity benefit and reducing the annual expenditure on benefits?
	In considering by how much expenditure on uprating can be reduced in future, will the Minister take into account the evidence that many people in receipt of these benefits, including incapacity benefit and the benefits uprated under the order, want to work and are being let down by the system as currently constructed? In a written reply to me last July, the national statistician told me that more than 2 million of the economically inactive want a job. That figure must include many of those in receipt of the uprated benefits under the order. Taking into account all those on out-of-work benefits, we estimate that nearly 5 million people are on such benefits, including many subject to the ordersuch as 2.6 million people claiming incapacity benefit, which is being uprated, and 837,000 people on jobseeker's allowance, which is likewise being uprated. Against that rather dismal background, can the Minister give us a sense of where he sees expenditure on these benefits going in future? Does he expect as much to be spent on these benefits in years to come because of the sheer number of people claiming?
	I appreciate that the order is an annual exercise, but it is not a model of simplicity, and the explanatory memorandum is not exactly forthcoming. It tells us what is happening in a very broad sense but gives us little insight into the details in respect of individual benefits. For example, how easy is it for a pensioner to find out what effects article 6(10) has on his or her entitlements under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or the Pension Schemes Act 1993? In an attempt to scrutinise Government proposals such as this, the Social Security Advisory Committee asked the Minister's Department to provide what it called a complexity impact statement. It is salutary to read what the committeethe expert body charged with looking at the social security system and all such uprating orderssays in its most recent report. It says:
	We noted in our last report that these statements had told us little about either how the Department's guidelines on simplification have been applied in each case or about the impact statements that have been made subsequently. We have found this lack of exposure of the process frustrating and on the basis of the limited information that has been offered to us, we have been unable to judge whether any substantial progress is being made.
	In short, these and other measures coming from the Department are too complicated for a complexity impact statement. If that is how the distinguished members of the Social Security Advisory Committee found things, what must they be like for the recipient who wants to find out more about their entitlements under orders such as this? To put it as the committee diplomatically did, there is a substantial barrier to full customer engagement. That is a good description of the way this Government so often operate.

Paul Flynn: This annual uprating debate is not the most striking example of the power of Parliament over the Executive. The order is not amendable, and unfortunately all we can do is take it or leave it. The Lib Dems were unwise to vote against it one year; they were then castigated for being against the increase in pensions. We should consider this situation. We would dearly like to suggest amendments to this order, which I shall come to later.
	I and, I suspect, every Labour Member congratulate the Government on their achievements in this area during the past 10 years. I regularly hold public meetings with pensioners and with Age Concern to tell them what is going on and to increase the uptake. I would like to make one plea on uptake. There is real resentment among pensioners about taking handouts, which runs very deeply for certain generations who have worked all their lives and never taken a handout. They see the pension credit and income support as handouts; they accept the entitlement of the basic pension because they have paid for that. That is a serious problem and it is a persistent one. It used to be the case that about an extra half a million people needed to claim income support to bring them up to the minimum income guarantee level, but we now hear that 1.7 million do not claim pension credit.
	I appeal to the Minister to find a better way to deal with the issue than the take-up campaign. We have had dozens of those in the past, and none of them has been very successful. Surely there must be some way the Department can delve into the records to identify those who are entitled to pension credit and more income support. It can then write to them and tell them, There is a very large sum of money to which you are entitled, and it's waiting for you.

Angus MacNeil: In an intervention, I suggested to the Minister the idea of telephoning certain groups of pensioners, but he was not as enthusiastic about that as he might have been. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) would support a pilot project of telephoning the most needy pensioners to improve the uptake of these credits.

Paul Flynn: There must be a better way of doing it. I will take part in the campaigns that the Minister will lead. We have the communications alliance now, which gives a chance to publicise the meetings and get pensioners along, but we must find a better way than the simple uprating campaigns that have been only partially successful in the past.
	This debate provides a chance to look at many of the defects in the system. We must consider the figures that are not uprated; this is a serious matter. We rightly concentrate on the benefits that will be increased, but some figures are not uprated annually at all. In particular, I refer to the capital limits for entitlement to means-tested benefit. The amount of capital that a pensioner can have without benefit entitlement being affected was fixed at 6,000 in 2001a great deal more than it was in the past. Seven years later, it remains 6,000.
	A constituent of mine, Mr. Cliff Knight, who is a doughty campaigner for pensioners and is a local historian, is finding that the ageing process comes with many companions and that he needs many services that he never previously required. The example is interesting and I want to go into detail about it. He was refused a grant to buy a stair lift. The means test for disabled facilities grants is based on the housing benefit rules. Although the weekly needs of a disabled pensioner are assessed at 186.55 for housing benefit purposes, increasing to 194 this April, the figure for calculating entitlement for a disabled facilities grant is 171.40, which was the housing benefit rate for 2005-06. Surprisingly, that makes a huge difference. The failure to increase the sum since 2005-06 makes a difference of 8,812 in the amount of grant payable. That is staggering. It means that many people, who are entirely deserving of the grants, are floated off them by the failure to uprate the amount in line with inflation. We must examine thata large cohort of pensioners has been badly dealt with because of that problem.
	There is plenty of good news from the Government. It has been gratifying to be a Labour Member in a successful period for pensions. Last year's Pensions Act embodied two fundamental and welcome changes to entitlement to the basic state pension. First, the earnings link, which was severed in 1980, is to be restored so pensions will increase, as they did before then, at least in line with the increase in average earnings.
	The second welcome change especially affects women. The number of years of contributions that is needed to qualify for the full rate of pension is currently 44 for men and 39 for women. That will now be reduced to 30 years for both sexes, thus putting right an old injustice.
	However, the order reflects neither benefit because the change in the contribution conditions will not come into force until April 2010 and the earnings link will not be restored until at least 2012 and possibly not until 2014. In both cases, the delay is hard to defend, especially given the surplus in the national insurance fund. If current trends continue, we will be in the extraordinary position whereby the surplus in the national insurance fund will be enough by 2013 to fund a Northern Rock rescue, should such a calamity recur.
	For many years, I used to get up early to table early-day motion 1, asking for the restoration of the earnings link. If we had restored it in 1997, it would have been affordable because the subsequent increases in inflation have been low. That should have happenedit would have been a great advantage to us.
	Breaking the earnings link had a dramatic effect on the basic pension. Most of the damage was done under the Tories. The basic pension fell from 23.7 per cent. of average earnings in 1981 to 17 per cent. in 1997. That is sad, bearing in mind my comments about the value of the basic pension as something to which people feel they are entitled and are proud to take. Take-up is virtually universal. Sadly, the process has continued, with a further drop under the present Government from 17 to about 15.4 per cent. The valued pension is therefore being reduced all the time, thus increasing the amount people have to claim.
	Single pensioners are now about 47 a week worse off than they would be if the link had never been broken. That is a large sum of money. Everyone including all the Opposition parties, I believeagrees that the link must now be restored. Do people understand what it means? Everyone, especially those on small incomes, fears that their income will not keep up with inflation. They are going to find themselves with a reducing power to spend. They want the link as it gives a great deal of security, and if it is not there they rightly object. The link is justified and will be hugely popular for the party that introduces it. However, pensioner organisations do not understand why they have to wait at least another four years until they have it. By 2012, the pension will be 14 per cent. of average earnings, and each year's delay beyond that date will reduce it still further.
	It is not just today's pensioners who will suffer from the delay; it will also mean a permanent reduction in the value of the pension as a proportion of average earnings for generations to come and a permanent increase in the proportion of pensioners forced to rely on means-tested benefit. At the very least, the Government should now give a definite commitment to restore the link by 2012, leaving open the possibility of earlier action.
	On contribution conditions, the second fundamental change embodied in the Pensions Act 2007 was the reduction in the number of years of contributions required for women eventually to qualify for a full or nearly full basic state pension. Those who stand to benefit most are those who, wisely or not, chose to pay the reduced married woman's contribution and those who paid full contributions when they could but had substantial gaps in their contribution records for the years when they were bringing up children or caring for disabled members of their family.
	However, until 1978 the years devoted to child care or other family responsibilities did not count towards the state pension. Barbara Castle introduced the home responsibilities protection, or HRP, the effect of which was that those years were to be left out of the pension calculation. That meant that a woman with, say, a 10-year gap in her contributions record during which she was caring for children or a disabled relative could still qualify for a full pensionan act that we all accepted as absolutely right. However, HRP did not start until 1978 and did not apply retrospectively. There are therefore still a large number of women over pension age whose child-rearing years occurred at least in part before 1978 and who still receive reduced pensions as a result.
	To their credit, the Government have recognised that. The May 2006 pensions White Paper said:
	Women's pension entitlements are, on average, catching up with men's. But there remains a critical cohort of women over the age of about 45 now who did not fully benefit from HRP. They have significantly poorer contribution recordsdespite the fact that most of them will have made important and valuable contributions to society.
	The admirable solution proposed in the White Paper and embodied in last year's Act was to reduce the number of contribution years needed for a full pension, but only for those reaching pension age in 2020 or later. However, most in the critical cohort referred to in the White Paper are already over pension age now. It is the older women who are worst affected, because more of their child-rearing days occurred before 1978, when HRP started.
	A woman now aged 80 would have been 50 in 1978, so would probably derive little or no benefit from HRP, and will almost certainly receive a reduced pension as a result, yet the new and more generous rules will not apply to her. Moreover, it is plainly unfair that a woman born on 5 April 1950, and now aged 57, should receive a much smaller pension in April 2010 than a woman with the same contribution record who was born a day later. However, that is the effect of the change in the contribution conditions as it stands now.
	As April 2010 approaches, people will become increasingly aware of the cliff edge that we will face at that time. It is difficult to believe that the Government will not be compelled by public opinion and the deep sense of injustice that will be felt to backdate the change, so that existing as well as future pensioners benefit from it. I urge the Minister and the Government to make a decision, rather than leaving it to the last moment, so that women already receiving reduced pensions can at least look forward to a better pension from 2010 onwards.
	The national insurance fund is a fascinating subject with which I have bombarded Pensions Ministers in a number of Governments for rather a long time.

Angus MacNeil: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Is he talking about a citizens pensionan automatic entitlement for each and every citizen of pensionable age?

Paul Flynn: That would be a fine objective to aim for.
	As the Minister said earlier, the Government havefor good, persuasive reasonsconcentrated on those whom they perceive to be the poorest pensioners. The great problem is, however, that the people on whom they have concentrated are not the poorest pensioners. The poorest pensioners are not those who are claiming pension credit and income support to bring them up to at least the minimum income guarantee; the poorest pensioners of all are those who are not claiming the allowances to which they are entitled. They are the ones who need to be targeted now. We should be aiming to provide a universal benefit that is as popular as child benefitwhich is taken up by 99 per cent. of those who are eligibleand has no stigma attached to it. Sadly, however, we are not getting nearer to achieving that goal; we are getting further away.
	Any proposals for increases in benefits must take account of their affordability, as the Minister has rightly said. The cost of pensions and other contributory benefits falls on the national insurance scheme, and the Government Actuary's report shows that, once again, the fund is in extremely good shape. It is expected to end this financial year with a balance of 46 billion. Because the fund has no borrowing powers, the Government Actuary recommends that the year-end balance should be enough to meet two months' expenditure, but 46 billion is enough to meet eight months' expenditure. By the end of next year, the balance is expected to reach 57 billion, which will be enough to cover nearly 10 months' expenditure. The fund has been accumulating ever-increasing balances over the past 15 years, and this is set to continue. The Government Actuary's projection shows the balance trebling by 2013 to 115 billion, the equivalent of more than 16 months' expenditure. The process has continued under this Government. We started off with a balance of 500 million, and the amount has simply accumulated.
	It is often suggested by campaigning bodies such as the splendid National Pensioners Convention that, instead of building up these massive surpluses, the money should be used to meet part of the cost of an improvement in the state pension. That is a very persuasive argument. There is a standard response, which I have seen in numerous letters from Ministers over the years. They say:
	The National Insurance Fund is run on a pay-as-you-go basis. When there is a surplus, it is invested in gilts. If the surplus was used to increase benefits, the Government would need to raise the equivalent through other means such as raising taxes.
	That is a key revelation. In other words, the Government are deliberately collecting more money in national insurance contributions than is needed to pay benefits, and using the surplus for purposes which, however worthy they might be, have nothing to do with national insurance.
	This is a genuine stealth tax. I am sorry to have to use that term, as it has been vastly overused, and misused, by the Opposition. In the short term, this might be a convenient arrangement for the Government, but in the longer term, it can only undermine confidence in the whole national insurance system. Moreover, if national insurance contributions are regarded as just another form of taxation, the Government are open to the serious objection that the rich do not pay their fair share. They pay only 1 per cent. of their earnings over 670 a week, compared with the standard employee's contribution of 11 per cent.
	Personally, I pay nil per cent., because I am in the position, having passed retirement age, of not having to pay national insurance contributions. I have raised this matter with Chancellors in the past, and I would suggest to the Minister that, if the Government are looking for a way of raising money fairly painlessly, they could ask people who work after retirement age to continue to pay national insurance contributions. They can certainly afford to pay them, and there would be a great deal of justice if those fortunate enough to work after retirement age did so. That would raise 2 billion, and I believe that that is what should happen. At the moment, however, we have a situation that is leading to serious injustices in the system.
	I come back to the fact that I look forward to saying with pride at the next election what a marvellous job the Government have done over the last 10 years. As the motto of one of the schools in my constituency says, Nid da lle gellir gwellthere is no good that cannot be improved upon. We have yet to reach perfection in the system, so I hope that the Minister will take account of what have hopefully been my many constructive suggestions.

Danny Alexander: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who made a number of important points. The process for debating benefit upratings simply does not allow us to have a proper discussion of the adequacy or otherwise of benefits, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to improve parliamentary scrutiny so that we can properly address that issue, perhaps once every Parliament, and ensure that we do not lose sight of the genuine problems caused by the inadequacy of some of the benefits, as highlighted by the hon. Gentleman.
	Liberal Democrat Members welcome the uprating statement. As the Minister said, it is a matter of great importance to every constituency that an additional sum in excess of 4 billion will be put into the benefits system as a result of the uprating. However, in common with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), as I listened to the Minister's opening remarks about the wider context, I felt that his analysis revealed a degree of complacency. The Minister was quite right to point to some improvements, but in view of the poverty statistics when the Conservatives left office and how bad the situation was then, we should regard some improvement as a bare minimum. Although there have been certain improvements, the situation is not as good as the Minister set out. In the interests of having an objective debate, it is also important to recognise where there is a desperate need for improvement. Nowhere is that more obvious than from a study of the poverty statistics, particularly those for child poverty, which is greatly affected by the benefits system.
	We talk a lot about child poverty and pensioner poverty, but we do not give much air time to poverty among people of working age, which is a serious problem. How adequate the relevant benefits are in relieving that poverty is a genuinely important issue. Similarly, the Minister cited, as Ministers often do, the improved statistics on the numbers of people in employment, but what he did not say is that even with those increases, it is still the case that today's employment rate is no higher than it was at the peak of the last economic cycle in 1990. For all the improvements in employment levels highlighted by the Minister, and the consequent reduction in the number of people on benefit, there is a still a huge way to go if we are to meet the target of increasing the employment rate to 80 per cent., for example.
	The need to go further is particularly true in respect of some of the groups to which the uprating statement applies. I refer specifically to the number of people on incapacity benefit, which has remained stubbornly high2.7 million when the Government came to office and about 2.6 million now. Despite that small drop in claimants, one of the greatest failures of welfare reform is the fact that we still have more than 2.5 million people in receipt of incapacity benefit despite all the evidence that a very large proportion of them would like to be able to work, if only the help and support were available to assist them in doing so. Likewise, the number of children living in workless households has remained stubbornly highanother matter to which I shall return.
	Let me make some general points about the uprating statement. The first issue that needs to be highlighted is the complexity of the benefit system. Complexity is often pinpointed as an issue in the abstract sense, but it is also a very real and direct issue because the system's complexities have a direct effect on people's ability to get back into work. People often cannot judge whether they will be better off in work, and in some cases they may well not be. In going through the detail of the uprating statement, as I am sure hon. Members have, we find that more than 400 different rates, tapers, allowances and premiums are being either uprated or, in some cases, not uprated. In fact, to describe the statement as uprating is slightly misleading. In reality, it is a non-uprating statement, because more than 100 of those rates, tapers, allowances and premiums are not being uprated. Many have not been uprated for some years. In a welfare system in which people, depending on their needs and conditions, face about 450 different benefit options, it is little wonder that some find that system highly complex.
	Ours has been described as the most complicated welfare system in the world, and it is hard for many of our constituents to navigate their way around it. While I welcome the improvements that the Government are making in relation to pensioners being able to make one phone call to claim several benefitsthe Minister referred to thosemany people who are not pensioners have needs that are just as great and find the system almost impossible to navigate. I hope that the Government take more cognisance of the importance of the issue of complexity and do more to simplify the benefits system.
	I put one proposal on the table, which Ministers have previously welcomed in general terms, as did the recent Freud reviewthe introduction of a single working age benefit. That significant simplification would make the landscape for people of working age much easier to understand and it would promote people getting back into work. Good intentions have been expressed on the issue from time to time, not least by the new Secretary of State during Question Time on Monday, but I hope that the Minister will say that we can achieve some progress in investigating it. I think that would bring great benefit to this country.
	Likewise, in considering the range of different items that we are uprating today, it is important to realise that part of the complexity is created by the means-tested nature of those benefits. That is particularly true in relation to pensioners. I shall return to that matter.
	The next general issue is one that the hon. Member for Newport, West highlighted. In some cases, the benefits that we are uprating are inadequate to meet the tasks that we set for them, and that is expressed nowhere more clearly than in the poverty statistics. The hon. Member for Hertsmere highlighted from the Conservative Front Bench the problems that we have with many of the poverty figures, such as the recent rises in child poverty and the recent rises in poverty among people of working age. The Minister made the point that things have got better since 1997. That is true, but the more recent statistics suggest that there has been a change in that trend. We await the next set of figures to see whether that is continued, but none of us should be complacent about it.
	That applies, too, in the context of the rising inequality in British society. Let us consider the recent statistics on that front. The Gini coefficient, which is the recognised measure of inequality, is rising again. The Gini coefficient in the most recent year for which figures are available is the same as it was when the Government took office, so inequality is also a huge factor here. The latest figures suggest that child poverty is going up, and those for 2005-06 were 500,000 higher than the Government would have needed to meet their target for the previous year.
	It is right to debate the question of child poverty: the targets are to halve child poverty by 2010 and to abolish it by 2020, but a great deal more needs to be done if those targets are to be met. I am happy to reiterateI note that the hon. Member for Hertsmere did not explicitly do thismy party's commitment to the goal of ending child poverty by 2020. I had hoped that that was a matter of cross-party agreement.
	The Government are way off beam in terms of meeting their targets, so I hope that the Minister is listening to these points and will take them back to his colleagues. Those targets are important and I hope that Members in all parts of the House share in that.
	It is interesting to note that the Department's Harker review highlighted the fact that the important area to focus on in tackling child poverty is the impact on familiesoften two-parent families in which no one is working and people who might be receiving many of the benefits that we are dealing with today. There has been little progress on that front.
	I think that in addition to our annual debates on uprating orders which, as has been pointed out, are not amendable, there should be a process allowing more general questions about the adequacy of the benefits system to be reviewed, perhaps once in each Parliament. There could perhaps be an independent review leading to a parliamentary debate. The Minister will say that there are enormous financial implications, and that is true, but none the less we need an opportunity to discuss those broader questions.
	Much of what the Government are doing with the benefits system is rightly intended to get more people off benefits and into work. We share the objective, but it must be said that mixed messages does not begin to describe the range of signals that have been sent to people on benefit over the past few weeks in the pronouncements of various Ministers. On the one hand, it seems that people in social housing will have their houses taken away from them by the Housing Minister if they do not comply with the Government's requirements. On the other, what the Prime Minister has said suggests that additional sums are likely to be payable to those who try to find their way into work. Most recently, it has been proposed that people should be obliged to work for four weeks when they have been on benefit for two years.
	None of that has been mentioned today, but it suggests that, after 10 years of no success on the broader issues of welfare reform, the Government are anxious to give the public the impression that they are tough on those issues. I think their record shows that they should make much more effort to invest in the support that is needed to take people off benefits and return them to work. The macho talk that we are hearing is not particularly helpful, although I recognise that the benefits system should contain a degree of conditionality to deal with those who choose not to comply.
	We need to understand the methods by which benefits are delivered to claimants, and to determine whether those methods are adequate. The Minister referred to take-up. I welcome some of the improvements that he has introduced, such as the telephone support available to those of pensionable age who want a wider assessment of all the benefits that they can claim, but it is notable that the trend in Government has been towards delivering services over the telephone and away from face-to-face contact. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to deal with many claimants over the telephoneparticularly the most vulnerable, who will be claiming many of the benefits that we are discussing.
	The social fund commissioner's annual report, with which Members will be familiar, deals specifically with the delivery of social fund support over the telephone. Seven call centres were examined, and although one proved to be relatively successfulone call in five was answeredastonishingly, only seven calls in 400 were answered overall. If we want benefits to reach the people who claim them, that certainly needs to be improved. The Minister spoke of his wish to pursue pilots on take-up. I am sure that he has some good ideas, but I note in passing that although the Department paid for a couple of extra staff members for Highland council in my constituency to facilitate take-up, it withdrew the funding this year. Even that fairly small-scale assistance in one part of the country has now been removed.
	The Government still have not told us whether they intend to replace the Post Office card account, which many claimants use to collect their benefits, with a product delivered by the Post Office. I hope that that will be clarified shortly. I also observe an uncomfortable straw in the wind: the Government have not provided for the new local housing allowance, which replaces housing benefit, to be collected through a post office card account.
	The hon. Member for Hertsmere rightly draw attention to the amount of fraud and error in the benefits system. The Government have made progress in reducing fraud, but at the expense of a significant increase in both official and customer error. I would link the customer error directly to the complexity of the system.
	One of the specific benefits we are dealing with today is the winter fuel payment. Outrageously, it is not being uprated. In 2003, its value was 200, as it still is in 2008.

Mike O'Brien: I appreciate that the winter fuel payment is a legitimate matter of comment in the debate, but it is usually dealt with at the time of the Budget.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly if he is hinting that the next Budget might include changes to that payment. Many pensioners would appreciate that, as in 2003 the payment met 50 per cent. of the Government's estimate of the average fuel bill, but in 2008 that proportion has fallen to only 27 per cent. I hope that all Members will welcome the campaign launched today by the  Daily Mirror.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the orders before the House. He is now straying wide of the mark.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to highlight that the winter fuel payment is an important issue for pensioners, who are also in receipt of many of the other benefits that we are discussing today.
	It is important that we work to get extra income to pensioners across the board. As has been said, the basic state pension should be uprated in line with earnings. The importance of that is highlighted by the fact that many of the costs that pensioners facenot least energy costsare increasing dramatically. The fact that we have seen again today scandalous and excessive energy company price rises, which pensioners will pay out of their pension credit, their basic state pension and their winter fuel payment, makes the pointwhich I hope the Minister is taking on boardthat the Government must reconsider the current amount of the winter fuel payment.
	As has been said, pensioner poverty is an important issue. It would be churlish not to recognise that, over the past 10 years, there have been improvements in terms of tackling it, yet the take-up of benefits is still a major problem. The Government have introduced the pension credit, a means-tested system, to top up the basic state pension, but up to 1.7 million pensioners do not claim the pension credit to which they are entitled. Likewise, many pensioners are entitled to council tax benefit, which is also dealt with in the orders before us today. In the past 10 years, that benefit has increased by 87 per cent. yet it is claimed by only 53 per cent. of pensioners who are entitled to it.
	Today's uprating statement is a huge missed opportunity in terms of pensioner poverty in that it fails once again to announce the uprating of pensions in line with earnings. During the passage of the Pensions Act 2007, we argued that that should be introduced this year. It has not been. The Government have still not even said when they intend to do so; it might be in 2012, or it might not be until as late as 2015. As the hon. Member for Newport, West rightly observed, that means that the value of the basic state pension will fall still further behind average earnings. I have made the point before that that amounts to a serious erosion of pensioner incomes, particularly for those who do not claim pension credit because it is complex or because they find means-testing intrusive. Those are understandable reasons.
	We should move towards having a much higher basic state pension. The objective should be a citizen's pension, so that every pensioner has, on the basis of residency, a basic state pension that keeps them out of poverty. That is, I believe, an obligation of the state, and the citizen's pension is the means to deliver it in such a way that we can ensure that it goes to every pensioner who needs that money.
	It is also worth noting that the uprating of pensions applies only to some pensioners. It applies to pensioners in this country, of course, and to some British pensioners who have moved abroad, but it does not apply to many British pensioners who have moved abroad to live in certain countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There is a genuine injustice in that, which the Government have recognised in previous debates but have done nothing to address. Again, the Minister needs to examine that issue.
	We are dealing with a number of benefits, rates and so on relating directly to children. Worryingly, it is looking ever more difficult for the Government to meet their child poverty targets, because child poverty rose in the last year for which we have figures. That is appalling, particularly given that poverty has been entrenched in many families for generation after generation. I would like child benefit to be used much more directly to address that problem; indeed, we have put forward proposals for increasing child benefit so that more families with children can be helped out of poverty.
	As for the tax credits system, although that system has benefited many families, it is equally true that 40 per cent. of families claiming tax credits have received overpayments or underpayments and a great deal of hardship has been caused, particularly by the overpayments. About 2 million families were overpaid tax credits in the last year for which we have figures, creating a financial rollercoaster and costs, and in many cases causing hardship. The system is supposed to help people in work who need their income supplemented to get them out of poverty. That is why moving to a system of fixed awards is the right way to go, as opposed to the present fluctuating system. I hope that the Minister will pass on my comments to his Treasury colleagues, who are responsible for the tax credits system although we are dealing with its uprating today, so that a degree of stability, which is vital for so many families, can be introduced into it.
	Today's uprating statement does little to address the high marginal deduction rates that many people still face. Although the number of people who, when they get into work, face marginal deduction rates equivalent to tax rates of more than 100 or 90 per cent. has been reduced, a substantial body of people in the middle face marginal deduction rates ranging from 60 to 80 per cent. That is unacceptable. If the Minister were to say that he wished to introduce an income tax rate for higher earners of 60, 70 or 80 per cent., there would rightly be howls of protest. When the tax credits system interacts with the benefits systemhousing benefit, council tax benefit and so onand people keep only 10, 15 or 20p of every extra pound they earn, that system should be seen as no more acceptable for people on low incomes than higher-rate income tax would be for people on high incomes.
	One further pressing issue is missing from this statement, namely the way in which housing benefit works, particularly for young people under 25 who still face the scandalous single room rate. That rate means that people below that age receive a lower level of housing benefit. That causes hardship and difficulties, not least for young people starting out in life who have left home or who are trying to get out of care. It is important that the Government do not lose sight of that problem. Ministers have been repeatedly pressed to drop the single room rate, which children's organisations, anti-poverty organisations and housing organisations, such as Shelter, protest against. If the Government are serious about dealing with poverty among young people, they must directly address that issue.
	I obviously welcome the overall uprating of benefits. However, there are serious problems in our welfare system relating to adequacy, complexity and the incentives for people to get back into workthose incentives must be a crucial part of the welfare system. The Government have a very long way to go before they can claim to have met the aspirations that the Minister set out in his opening speech.

John Butterfill: May I point out that I am the first Opposition Back Bencher to be able to speak in this debate? Only one other Labour Back Bencher has spoken, and nearly all the time for Back Benchers has gone, if we want to hear the Minister wind up, which I am sure we all do. I shall therefore be very brief.
	The issue of the guaranteed minimum pensions and their uprating has hardly been mentioned. A great opportunity has been lost in recent pensions legislation to get rid of guaranteed minimum pensions altogether. They could have been taken out of the system if some creative thinking had been applied. As it is, they cost a lot of money in administration for those few employers who still have defined-benefit schemes and add an enormous amount to the cost. The failure to uprate them fully in line with RPIthe capping proceduremeans that a further burden rests on the employers, and that is not what was originally intended. A thorough review of the way in which GMP works is long overdue.
	There are other problems relating to the administration. For example, many schemes have found that the information coming from HM Revenue and Customs and the National Insurance Contributions Office has been either misleading or incorrect. That again causes problems for the employers who are running the schemes. It is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed.
	At the moment we have a surplus of indices, which appears almost designed to confuse the general public who are entitled to benefits. We have RPI, the RPI minus X, the consumer prices index and the Rossi index, which is lower than all the others. Most people cannot understand them. Why is it that those who seek income-related benefits, such as jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and income support, should be discriminated against by the use of the Rossi index, which is lower than all the other indices? Does the Minister think that jobseekers do not have to pay rent, mortgage interest or council tax? Why are those items omitted from the index, when those people often have to pay them?

Mike O'Brien: rose

John Butterfill: I shall not give way to the Ministerhe can reply when he winds up shortlybecause many of my hon. Friends also wish to speak.
	It is bizarre that those who are most in need, who have lost their jobs or have not been able to get jobs, are subject to the lowest index. The Government have deliberately muddied the water with a plethora of indices designed to mislead the general public at a time when they need better and clearer information.

Anne Main: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) for being brief, because many of us have something to say about the uprating.
	We all agree that benefits are supposed to support those in need and ensure a decent standard of living for those whose income falls short, but they were never meant to be a lifestyle choice or a refuge for scroungers or fraudsters. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, many of those who do not claim benefits are those in the greatest need, so benefits are not going where they are supposed to go.
	While we need to get rid of some of the flagrant abuses in the system, we also need the shake-up of the system that the Minister mentioned to ensure that genuine claimants do not lose out to benefit cheats. The Government know that they have to get a grip on the issue, because taxpayers too often read in the media about high profile cases of people making multiple fraudulent claims and seeing this country as a soft touch. Benefit fraud was nearly three and a half times as high in 2004 as it was in 1999, and was the second most commonly committed fraud offence in England and Wales after obtaining property by deception. The estimated loss to the Department for Work and Pensions in that period was just under 1 billion.
	The uprating is fine, but not if all it does is provide more for fraudsters to target. As the judge said in the case I mentioned earlier, it was disturbing that alarm bells had not rung earlier. We need a better communication system not only to get benefits to where they are supposed to go, but to ensure that we are not losing out to fraudulent claimants who see us as a soft touch with few checks and balances in the system.
	I am also surprised that it has not been mentioned that today's uprating of benefits will also affect some EU claimants who have come into the country and claimed for children who do not live here. Many of my colleagues and people in the street find that somewhat bizarre. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of whether we can put in place any measures to crack down on fraud and to ensure that only genuine payments are made through the system as regards any benefits that are paid outside our country's shores. I have serious concerns that if the level of fraud in our country is not being cracked down on, the level of fraud outside this country might be even more enormous. I find it worrying that we are not putting in place the same checks as we are putting in place in this country when it comes to dealing with some 14,000 migrants who claim child benefit for children who do not live in this state, costing our taxpayers at least 250,000. That is a worrying situation.
	Another issue that was not raised too frequently in the debate is fuel poverty. We have heard about the winter fuel payment, but that goes to the elderly and to pensioners. Fuel poverty affects many of my constituentsI have referred to this beforeand 16 per cent. of homes in St. Albans find themselves in fuel poverty. Many of those families receive multiple benefits, so they will welcome the uprating. It is very worrying that the Government are missing their fuel poverty target. I know that the Energy Bill is in Committee, but we need to put in place better systems to ensure social tariffs and to direct benefits to alleviate fuel poverty for those families who suffer from it. Of course, many of those families have children, too.
	Part of the problem has been communication about how benefits are claimed. I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill not long after I came to the House to try to encourage people to take up benefits on behalf of those who are terminally ill. Indeed, the uptake of that benefitthe disability living allowanceis still woefully poor. I was assured that communication from the Government would improve. Unfortunately, I have not seen that improvement. I welcome the warm words about encouraging pensioners through a phone call or through other means to take up pensioner benefits, but I have heard the same encouraging words before about people who are diagnosed as terminally ill and are unaware of the benefits that they are entitled to claim. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that people who need benefits at various stages in their lifeparticularly towards the end of their lifeneed clarity and simplicity in the system so that they get the benefits to which they are entitled. I do not feel that there has been any movement on that, and that is a shame.
	In St. Albans, we have seen a rather good report about targeting people in order to stop fraud. Yet again, we fell down on the subject of communication about how to access benefits. That was also highlighted in a report by the Public Accounts Committee.
	The uprating of benefits is extremely welcome in the case of those families who are truly deserving. I do not welcome the fact that fraudsters see the uprating as an extra few pounds in their pocket, nor the fact that they will not be stopped from claiming fraudulently. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, we will not welcome it if the benefits are uprated and then sit idle and unclaimed by those who truly deserve to claim them. The Minister should put on his thinking cap and ensure that the benefits are not only uprated but made truly available to those who deserve to claim them.

Charles Walker: I am grateful to be called to speak in this lively debate. I am delighted that I am the fourth Back Bencher to have the chance to say my piece.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) about the use of various indexes. We in the House find them very confusing indeed and we are meant to be the professionals. I know for certain that my constituents are completely baffled by the difference between the consumer prices index, the retail prices index and Rossi, which my hon. Friend mentionedthey probably think that Rossi is an Italian football player. We owe it to the public to be transparent when we talk about inflation. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man for the great brains in this place and the civil service to come up with just one index that accurately reflects the cost of living.
	I want to touch on the subject of pensioners. I am delighted that they will have a much-needed increase in their pension, because they are often the people with the least disposable income and, indeed, the smallest income. However, I do not share the Government's enthusiasm for what has been achieved over the past 10 years. In my constituency, like many others, pensioners struggle hard to make ends meet. Council tax seems to go up by about 5 per cent. year on year, and much of the increase is because councils have to deliver central Government initiatives that are either underfunded or completely unfunded. The cost of fuel for pensioners is going up at an extremely high rate, which is not adequately reflected in the allowances they receive to pay for their fuel, particularly in the winter months.

Anne Main: As a fellow Hertfordshire MP, my hon. Friend may have noticed the unfortunate sneering from the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) and some of her colleagues when we said that the small grants we receive in terms of funding allowances mean that we often have disproportionately large rises in council tax.

Charles Walker: I do not want this to be a partisan debate, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. When she was discussing the plight of her constituents in St. Albans, there was some sneering from the Labour Benches. I point out to those Members that there are many thousands of Labour voters in St. Albansindeed, it was a Labour seat until the last general election when my hon. Friend won it for the Conservatives. I was slightly annoyed by the sneering, which injected a rather sour tone into the debate, but I am sure those Labour Members are very sorry about it.
	I return to heating and fuel for pensioners. I am not a great class warrior, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) I am a member of a trade union and I feel that there is a whiff of the Cedrics at British Gas. I was slightly concerned to hear that the company is making record profits when many pensioners are struggling to pay their bills. British Gas needs to have a long hard think about what it is doing. I am not against profit at allprofit is paid into pension fundsbut I am really concerned that energy companies are making large sums of money off the back of some hard-pressed people in our communities. Pensioners are paying more for staple foods and the cost of bought-in care is increasing.
	I shall touch briefly on incapacity benefit. I am delighted that people who are genuinely ill and unable to work will receive an uplift in their benefits. It is important that they have quality of life, although of course it will not be the same as if they were in work, but I hope that for many of them it is manageable. However, like many Members, I am concerned about the increase in the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit. Being on benefit is no way to live if there is another option, so I hope that the Government are really committed to getting more people off incapacity benefit and back to work. Many people who have been out of work for a long period begin to doubt their ability to go back to the workplace; mental health issues creep in and there is loss of confidence. I hope that collectively, across the Chamber, we can come together to ensure that people who can work have the chance to do so.
	I was pleased that there will be some adjustment to tax credits, but I am concerned that they are not necessarily the answer in the long term. All of us will have heard in our surgeries the harrowing cases of people in receipt of tax credits who are being pursued for back payments of between 4,000 and 7,000. One of the fundamental problems in this country is that people start paying tax on their income far too early. I have said it before in the Chamber, I say it now, and I will say it again.
	It is incumbent on a civilised society to ensure that hard-working families whose earnings are at or near minimum wage level hold on to as much of their earnings as possible, rather than having their earnings taken off them by Government, through tax, and then laundered back to them in the form of tax credits. That robs people of their self-respect, and it is not the best way of helping those at the bottom of the income scale. Again, I am not seeking to make a partisan attack; that is just my fundamental belief, as a Member of Parliament and as a member of society. I hope that when our time comes and we are in governmentas we will be, because we still live in a democracywe will address the issue.
	I represent Broxbourne, which is full of generous people who understand the need to look after the old, the infirm and those who are struggling between jobs, either because they are made unemployed through no fault of their own, or because they are having a difficult time. However, there is concern among all our constituents about the growth in the number of professional claimantsclaimants who think that the state is there to support their way of life, and who think that they have no obligation to the state. When social security was created, the idea was that people paid into a fund that acted as a safety net, and could draw on it in their time of need. That is a noble, lasting, good idea. However, I am terribly concerned that a whole section of society think that they can draw on that fund, but have no obligation to support it or make any contribution towards it in their life.
	If we are to retain long-term confidence in our system of social security, we need to make sure that it is seen to be fairthat those who have paid into it are at the head of the queue, and that it is there for them in their time of need. All of us will know of horrible cases in our constituencies in which people with successful lives, who may not have been earning a lot of money but who had stable jobs, a stable family life and a stable home, suddenly suffered a great tragedy or an illness. Those people's lives can unravel incredibly quickly, and they find it difficult to access services and benefits. They struggle to keep themselves together. Sometimes they face losing their house or their childrenthey face all sorts of tragediesyet on the other hand some people who have never done a stroke of work in their life, have never contributed to society in any reasonable way, seem to sail through everything, and have everything laid on for them. We must put hard-working people and families at the forefront of our benefits system.
	The  Daily Mail would have us believe that millions of immigrants are coming to this country and abusing our system. Of course there will be somea minoritywho do that. We must be mindful of that and we must not allow it to happen. However, I get annoyed when newspapers attack immigrant communities and fail to reflect the fact that there are many people born and bred in this country who abuse and cheat the system. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. I support any measures that ensure that people who do not have a right to access benefits do not get their hands on them.

Mike O'Brien: This has been a useful, helpful debate, and many of the contributions that were made in the time available were important. It is fair to say that we Front Benchers took quite a bit of time in dealing with issues, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) said, but we also took quite a few interventions. There is a trade-off: either Front Benchers take interventions [Interruption.] Front Benchers are in unity, for once. Either we take interventions, and take up more time, or we do not take interventions and speak more briefly. If we do the latter, Members complain that we have not taken interventions, so we cannot win. The contributions that were made were important. If colleagues will bear with me, I will not take substantial interventionswell, I suppose I will if I am really pressed, but I would rather try to deal with the points made.
	Our aim has been to deliver justice for those who are workless, for those who are disabled and for pensioners. I shall deal first with pensioners. We are spending 75 billion on pensioners this year. The sum is set to rise to 78 billion next year and 86 billion by 2012. Since 1997, pensioner incomes have risen across the board, with the poorest benefiting the most. The uprating order underlines our commitment to provide extra security in retirement.
	Several Members referred to issues related to fuel poverty. We recognise that fuel costs can be a particular concern for older people. That is why we introduced the winter fuel payment. Since 1997, it has increased tenfold to 200, and to 300 for the over-80s. Alongside that, our Warm Front programme has provided grants and aid to over 1.6 million households. Better insulation can lead to savings of up to a third off winter fuel bills.
	However, we have seen recent rises in fuel costs. I am concerned about the impact that these increases will have on vulnerable customersnot only pensioners, but others, too. I am working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy to see whether we can engage with the energy sector and reduce the risks for the most vulnerable. Some of the more vulnerable groups can get help from fuel companies, which have social tariffs and programmes for insulation and so on, enabling them to target those most in need. We want to work much more effectively on that.
	Only last week I announced a campaign to ensure that pensioners who are entitled to grants from Warm Front take them up. We are sending letters to 250,000 of the most vulnerable pensioners, encouraging them to apply for grants for better insulation and energy efficiency measures.
	For the pensioners of tomorrow, we are ensuring that everyone can save for a better retirement and we have made some historic changes to the state pension. The earnings link will come back, and we will achieve equality for women's state pensions within a generation.

Angus MacNeil: rose

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am trying to deal with a large number of points rather quickly.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned the uprating of guaranteed minimum pensions. GMPs ceased to accrue from April 1997, but past rights still exist. The Pensions Act 2007 allowed schemes to convert those rights to normal scheme rights, and the aim is to commence that legislation from, we hope, April 2009.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) raised several issues. He is right to say that the disability facilities grant has not been uprated since December 2005, when we implemented the proposal to exclude children's cases from means-testing. We are expecting to update the regulations shortly and we will also consider a packet of changes. The Government regard the DFG programme as an important means of helping more than 35,000 older and disabled people each year to continue to live independently. We have substantially increased funding for the programme from 57 million in 1997 to 146 million in 2008-09. Further steps will be announced shortly.
	My hon. Friend also spoke about the national insurance fund. Increasing the basic state pension to the level of the guarantee credit would cost about 20 billion a year. By 2015, that would rise to about 80 billion a year, which would wipe out the balance in the national insurance fund in a matter of years.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the capital disregard in relation to pension credit. He is right to say that there is an issue. We have focused on trying to help the poorest. We know that 80 per cent. of those eligible for pension credit have less than 6,000 in capital.
	I could deal at great length with equality for women, which is a complex issue. I am aware that there have been problems with recording home responsibilities protection in the past. Urgent work is under way to identify those affected. Where we find errors, we are correcting them. The Pension Service has been in contact with nearly 500,000 people, mostly women, regarding payment of contributions for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02. We are also contacting male pensioners who have had particular problems because of the lack of HRP recording in the past. We are trying to make sure that we get the issue right.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the cliff edge; I will soon have to deal with that during discussion of the Pensions Bill. That will be a better time to deal with the detailed arguments on what I accept is an important issue.
	Since 1997, pensioner poverty has reduced by more than a third to 17 per cent., through targeted support such as pension credit and about 11 billion of extra funding. We have lifted more than 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty after housing costs. Owing to the tax and benefit changes that we have introduced, pensioner households are on average 1,500 a year or 29 a week better off in 2007-08 than they would have been under the 1997 system. The poorest pensioner households are about 2,000 a year or 42 a week better off.
	I turn to the working-age issues, a significant number of which have been raised. Our aspiration is for a fair and inclusive society that offers greater opportunity and independence for people. The uprating orders move us further towards that. They help tackle poverty and exclusion and ensure security in retirement. In the past 10 years, we have made great strides in dealing with poverty and creating greater opportunity. For the first time in this country, we can look forward with greater confidence to full employment, eradicating child poverty and delivering justice to pensioners.
	Work is the best route out of poverty and today more people are in work than ever before: 29.4 million people, according to the latest figuresup 175,000 in the past three months. We have the second highest employment rate in the G7. Since 1997, employment has gone up by nearly 3 million; under the Conservative Government it was down by 3 million. Under Labour, employment has gone up in every region and country of the UK. It has gone up in the neighbourhoods and cities neglected by the Conservative party. It has gone up for disadvantaged groups: 300,000 more lone parents, 900,000 more disabled people, 1 million more from ethnic minorities and 1.5 million more older workers are in work. The number of job vacancies remains at 670,000.
	I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) about migration. However, I say to him that although migrants have come to this country to work, there are still 670,000 vacancies, and those are jobs for workers in this country to apply for. There are people on incapacity benefit whom we want to go into those jobs. There is still a demand for employment in this country and we still have a strong economy. The hon. Gentleman made points about some of our media, who tend to make unfair comments that are not acceptable.
	Several times, Conservative Members spoke of dealing with child poverty. A target is not a quota but a direction of travel and a measurement of whether we get there on schedule. That may be subject to events and circumstances, which may interfere, but a target tells people where we want to be. Let me be clear that we are sticking to our direction of travel. People know what our ideals, targets, direction and aims are.
	Do the Tories have any aims, ideals, targets or direction on poverty? We know what their direction was from their record. Under the Conservatives, child poverty doubled and we had the highest child poverty rate in the industrial world. More than one in four children lived in poverty and the value of child benefit was cut in real terms. That was not the 1930s, but the Tory early 1990s and they have still not learned. They will not pledge to eradicate child poverty; for them, that is merely some vague aspiration. Their policies would push millions back into poverty.
	We want to see those policies stopped and to see instead the creation of a fairer society. These orders are part of the process of creating that fairer societyhelping pensioners, helping those who need work to find work, and helping those who need benefits to get them. They take us a step closer to providing opportunity to all, and I commend them to the House.
	 It  being Six o'clock , Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceede d forthwith to put the Question, pursuant to Order [6 February].
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put the Question required to be put at that hour.

PENSIONS

Resolved,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, consideration of any Lords Amendments and Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4 and 5 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Employment And Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
	That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, the other place has been considering in Committee the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill and is sending it back to us with at least eight amendmentspossibly more, because I understand that more amendments have been tabled for the Report stage yet to be taken. This House has been allotted only one hour to consider those eight or more amendments, which in the other place were grouped in five separate groups. It is impossible for us properly to scrutinise that number of amendments, or even to vote on all of them, in the time allotted. Is there anything that this House can do to override, set aside or amend the business of the House motion that sets that time limit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's concern, but these rules are laid down by the House and cannot be altered at this time. However, his remarks are on the record, as I am sure he would want them to be.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the Chair has certain powers to curtail the length of speeches. I wonder whether that power applies to the Lords amendments. Could the Chair impose very narrow time limits so that Members have the opportunity to speak on those amendments, including Front Benchers, and so that the House has time to debate them, or does that not apply to Lords amendments? Might we find that a MinisterI understand this is not just about defeats in the Lords, as there have also been Government amendments to the Billtakes a lot of time, thereby not allowing a proper debate or even votes to take place in this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that as many Members as possible should be allowed to contribute. The best advice that I can give to the House is that everybody, Front Benchers and Back Benchers, should exercise some self-discipline.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2008, which was laid before the House on 23rd January, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [19 February].

Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 6
	  
	Transfer of property, rights and liabilities

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and Government motions to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 8.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Lords for their consideration of the Bill, which has been brought forward in exceptional circumstances. As a result of the consideration by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government put forward in the Lords a series of amendments to change several orders so that they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We think that that is the right approach and we therefore accept those Lords amendments.
	The Lords passed three amendments with which we wish to disagree and I shall take each in turn. Lords amendment No. 3 is on competition and the role of Office of Fair Trading andas a result of the consideration both in the Lords and this placewe have had further discussions with the OFT. It may be helpful to inform the House about those discussions.
	As we made clear in earlier debates, the Government recognise that we need to ensure that Northern Rock does not enjoy inappropriate or unfair advantages in competition with other banks and building societies. We need to ensure that we are operating in the interests of the taxpayer, but also that we have appropriate competition in the markets.
	At EU level, we have been clear that we will need to ensure that the business plan satisfies the EU state aid rules and support for Northern Rock needs to be fully consistent with those guidelines. As we told the House on Second Reading, we will also hold discussions with the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders before final plans are submitted to the European Commission for state aid approval.
	We agreed yesterday that the OFT will publish an annual report assessing any competitive implications of the public support for Northern Rock and, of course, the OFT also has the powers to step in at any time. The OFT is an effective watchdog, overseeing competitiveness in the UK markets. It has wide powers, including powers to investigate whether any market in the UK is distorted by unfair competition. It does not need specific new powers to report on the competitiveness of the banking market. Therefore, there is no need for Lords amendment No. 3, which would be an unnecessary duplication of the OFT's powers under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, and the European Commission's powers under the EU treaties. The amendment is inappropriate and I hope that the House will disagree with it.

John Redwood: Does that mean that the Chief Secretary envisages limiting the attractiveness of the rates that can be offered and charged by Northern Rock by reference to the average of its competitors?

Yvette Cooper: As we have repeatedly made clear, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to take decisions about individual products offered by Northern Rock. It is right that Ron Sandler should put forward his business plan, and that will obviously need to be approved by the Government as the shareholder in Northern Rock. Equally, as part of that process, we need to ensure, as we approve that business plan and have discussions with the EU, that we do not have unfair competition. It may well be that the European Commission will set out particular conditions on Northern Rock's operation, and, of course, we will have to ensure that Northern Rock complies with them.

Bob Spink: If the British Bankers Association eventually concludes that the arrangements lead to unfair competition, what redress will it have?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, the issue will be what the OFT concludes and what the EU concludes. Obviously, we will have discussions with the British Bankers Association, but Northern Rock will need to operate in compliance with UK competition law. It will obviously also have to comply with the EU state aid rules.
	We have to remember the underpinning purpose of this intervention, which was to secure the financial stability of the banking system. As we have said previously, it would obviously not be in the interests of other banks or consumers for there to be unfair competition. Equally, it would not have been in the interests of other banks or consumers if Northern Rock had gone under in the autumn and there had been a spread of instability across the banking system. Sometimes I think that hon. Members who raise concerns about this are in fact raising concerns about the fact that Government guarantees have been introduced at all.
	We think that it was right to introduce those Government guarantees, because we need to safeguard the stability of the wider banking system as part of the need to promote stability across the board. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to disagree with Lords amendment No. 3.
	I turn next to Lords amendment No. 1, which concerns the independent audit. Clearly, there should be an independent audit of Northern Rock. Indeed, an independent audit is currently under way. Northern Rock's audited annual accounts will be published, after independent audit, by the end of March. That should give the House and the public information on Northern Rock's assets and liabilities as part of its balance sheet. Northern Rock will continue to be subject to the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 2006. That means that the annual reports and accounts must be independently audited and filed with the registrar of companies for public access. We think that that is the appropriate way to conduct the audit.

Philip Dunne: Is the Chief Secretary therefore telling us that the audited accounts, which will be published at the end of March, will include the consolidation of the assets and liabilities held within the series of Granite subsidiaries of Northern Rock? If that is the case, will she clarify what she was signally unable to clarify last Tuesday? Will the Government have a call on the assets in the Granite subsidiaries in the event of defaults on its liabilities?

Yvette Cooper: We have set that out repeatedly. Clearly, the accounts will need to be set out in the normal way. The accounts of Northern Rock will need to meet all the ordinary accounting practices. It is right that that should be so. We have also repeatedly made it clear that the Government guarantees apply to Northern Rock and not to Granite. Again, it is right that that should be the case and that is the arrangement that has been set in place.
	It is right to think that the appropriate way to conduct the audit is the method I mentioned. To ask the Bank of England to conduct a separate audit would not be appropriate. That is not the Bank's area of expertise; it is not a professional independent auditor but a central bank. Interestingly, the amendment would not require an independent audit of Northern Rock within three months because it applies to clause 6, whereas the draft order that we have published would be made under clause 3. The amendment would therefore not achieve the intentions of the drafters.

Alan Beith: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that it is the very opacity of conventional accounting that worries people when they are confronted by the existence of operations such as Granite, which did not come to the notice of even quite experienced observers of Northern Rock until a relatively late stage in its life and remains the subject of considerable uncertainty? That is one of the reasons why other forms of audit are being sought.

Yvette Cooper: Many people have raised and discussed issues about Granite on many occasions. If the right hon. Gentleman is pointing to the fact that several people had clearly misunderstood the nature of Granite and changed their understanding yesterday, that is obviously a matter for them. There has been a lot of discussion about the arrangements for Granite; it is a special purpose vehiclethe kind of arrangement that many banks set upand it is important that its accounting treatment is properly dealt with and is properly transparent in the normal way. The matter has been discussed repeatedly.

Chris Mullin: rose

Jim Cousins: rose

Anne McIntosh: rose

Yvette Cooper: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Chris Mullin: I have not yet changed my understanding about Granite, and I put it to my right hon. Friend that at some stage a clear explanation will be needed of the company and its accounting arrangements, and the allegation that it will apparently be allowed to go on sucking assets from Northern Rock even after it is nationalised. That will have to be explained at some point[Hon. Members: Now.] I hope that my right hon. Friend will do so at some point this evening.

Yvette Cooper: Can we be clear? That is not an accurate description of the relationship between Granite and Northern Rock; it is simply not true to say that Granite has a call on the assets of Northern Rock in that way and is, as my hon. Friend put it, sucking out mortgages from the bank. That is not the structural or the contractual relationship between Granite and Northern Rock. I draw the attention of Members to the letter that has been circulated, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in the Library, and which provides greater clarity on that detail.
	I am conscious of the fact that many issues need to be raised. There is an important question about freedom of information that I need to cover as part of this debate.

Adam Price: Does the Chief Secretary accept that in this case, given the amount of public money we are talking about, the ordinary requirements for reporting under company law are not sufficient, especially because, as she is aware, there are serious doubts about the robustness of the interim report produced by the company in June? Within a few weeks, the company was running to the Bank of England for a massive loan. That is why we need the extra level of independent auditing.

Yvette Cooper: Let us be clear about the events, including the credit crunch in the summer, which triggered Northern Rock's particular difficulties. I agree that there is a wider question about the sustainability of the approach that Northern Rock took and its aggressive strategy. As part of our consultation paper about wider reforms to the banking system, we have also discussed the need to look more widely at issues around liquidity, not simply solvency, as part of the regulatory structure. There is obviously a wide series of issues.
	The Government have already stepped in to intervene with regard to Northern Rock. The Bank of England has already stepped in to intervene by providing additional loans to Northern Rock at an appropriate point and the Government have provided guarantees. It was right that the Government should do so; it was about protecting the financial stability of the banking system as a whole, as well as dealing with depositors' interests in Northern Rock. Of course, assessments and analysis have been carried out as part of the lending and guarantees, but the exposure remains the same, as a result of taking Northern Rock into temporary public ownership. The intention at all stages is to be able to try to return the company to the private sector as rapidly as possible. We are talking simply about a temporary arrangement, and that bears on the third amendment.

George Osborne: Before the right hon. Lady moves off that point, I point out that it has emerged that Northern Rock has a subsidiary based in the Channel Islands that takes offshore deposits. Are we to own a nationalised bank that operates in the Channel Islands and takes offshore deposits?

Yvette Cooper: As we have repeatedly made clear to the hon. Gentleman, we are not taking ownership of Granite. Throughout the process

George Osborne: rose

Yvette Cooper: Let me finish this point. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made completely inaccurate, nonsense points, not simply about Granite but about the overall relationship to Northern Rock, so much so that today's  Financial Times said:
	The argument...put forward by the Conservatives
	on Granite
	was roundly dismissed on Wednesday by City experts...Analysts said this showed a basic misunderstanding of how securitisations worked.
	The hon. Gentleman has today made a series of completely incorrect claims about the legal status of Northern Rock, which suggests a misunderstanding not simply of securitisations but of UK law.

George Osborne: I would be happy to read out a year's worth of  Financial Times articles about the performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I want to press the right hon. Lady on the point about the subsidiary of Northern Rock that operates and takes offshore deposits in the Channel Islands; it is not Granite but a subsidiary of the bank. If we nationalise the bank this evening, will the Northern Rock subsidiary in the Channel Islands operate as a Government-owned nationalised bank? After all, I remember that when the Prime Minister was the shadow Chancellor, he made a great point of noting the offshore tax evasion that took place in some parts of the world.

Yvette Cooper: We are clear that we are taking over the legal entity that is Northern Rockthe totality of Northern Rockand it will pass into the hands of the new board. Ron Sandler will now draw up the business plan and arrangements for the new bank. It is right that he should do so and that it should operate on a commercial basis. Let us be clear about why we have done what we have done: it is in order to save [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must be allowed to speak.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The implication of all the points that Opposition Members have raised is that fundamentally they do not like the fact that Government guarantees were provided for an organisation that continues to operate. They simply want to make opportunist points, providing no serious alternative for the future of Northern Rock or the future of the banking system.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I need to get on to the next amendment.

William Cash: The Minister has an obligation to answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not have an obligation to answer the hon. Gentleman. She has an obligation to speak to the House, and that is what she is doing.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I need to get on to Lords amendment No. 2, which is about the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Again, we do not believe that the amendment would be appropriate. It is important that the public and the House have information about Northern Rock, and as I have made clear, the full, audited annual accounts will be published by the end of March.

Richard Shepherd: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I shall make some progress and set out the points first, if I may, and then I will give way.

Richard Shepherd: rose

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman will take his seat, I will make a little progress with the arguments about freedom of information, and if I have time, I will give way to him later.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that it is not a point of order, but I will hear it.

Mark Harper: I have heard the Minister make lots of references to how little time we have. Surely that is governed by the Minister's business motion, so it is rather pointless for her to complain.

Mr. Speaker: I knew that the hon. Gentleman's comment would not be a point of order. I call Yvette Cooper.

Yvette Cooper: I appreciate that Opposition Members do not want to hear the points that we are making; they simply want to play games with what we should all recognise is an extremely serious issue concerning the future stability of the banking system and the future of Northern Rock.
	In addition to the full, audited annual accounts and the annual report, other information about Northern Rock will be provided. In addition, we have said that we will shortly publish the framework document, which will set out the appropriate operating arrangements between Northern Rock and the Government. We will also

Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: No, I will not until I have made some progress.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will let me make some progress on the points about freedom of information [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is usually a very calm individual. I plead with him to calm himself.

Yvette Cooper: I worry about the hon. Gentleman's blood pressure. He is getting himself into such an agitated state.
	In due course, Ron Sandler will publish his strategic business plan, which will include the overarching strategic aims for Northern Rock. The House will recognise that it would not be appropriate to publish detailed commercially sensitive information and it is right

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has just said that it would not be appropriate for information to be made available that was commercially sensitive. I was in the other House earlier this afternoon where I heard the Minister saying that that was not a matter that he would follow through

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that I have enough to do dealing with what is said in this House, without worrying about what is said down the Corridor.

Yvette Cooper: rose

John Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but as I have said repeatedly to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am keen to make a couple of points about freedom of information before taking interventions on it. I hope hon. Members will let me make a little progress.
	We believe that it would not be appropriate, however, to apply the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the institution. The bank will not be performing a public function that would make it appropriate to apply the Freedom of Information Act to it.

Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: In a moment.
	We have been clear that we are taking the bank into public ownership not because we believe there is a public function that we need it to fulfil, but in order to safeguard the stability of the financial system and the interests of the taxpayer. I should inform the House that the Bank of England also has an exemption from the Act on the information that it holds in relation to the provision of private banking services and related services. That is included in schedule 1 in part VI of the Freedom of Information Act, so it is written into the Act. That is important.

Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will make a judgment on this. It is absurd that a Minister declaims an interpretation of an Act of Parliament that the Government introduced and denies the very content of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be careful not to abuse the system of points of order. The right hon. Lady is perfectly in order. If she were out of order, I would say so. Believe me, I would be the first to say so. She is in order.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I shall make one more point about the importance of the freedom of information issue, then I shall be happy to take interventions from hon. Members. Let us be clear. We do not want Northern Rock to have to reveal commercially sensitive information that might undermine its position with regard to its competitors.  [Interruption.] We do not want it to be in a situation where there is uncertainty about whether particular pieces of information will be protected by commercial confidentiality, or will alternatively be judged to be in the public interest

Several hon. Members: rose

Yvette Cooper: The lack of certainty could undermine the bank's position when it is operating against competitors

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: and would not put the taxpayer in a sensible position when it comes to dealing with the need to sell the institution on to the private sector at an appropriate moment.

Several hon. Members: rose

Yvette Cooper: If hon. Members will just calm down and stop

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two hon. Gentlemen are getting to the stage of beginning to defy the Chair. Once they do that, there will be problems. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has had a good innings this week; he has spoken more than the Minister. He should calm down and listen to the Minister. That will give the official Opposition spokesman the opportunity to speak.

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to give way to hon. Members capable of asking a calm question.

Tim Boswell: I have not been a regular follower of this issue. Can the Minister explain to me how she can possibly justify saying that the bank is not performing a public function when the whole point of the state intervention that we are sanctioning tonight isallegedly, and on her own accountto safeguard the stability of the banking system?

Yvette Cooper: We are taking the bank into public ownership for a reason that is in the public interestthat is rather different from the ongoing function that the bank performs. That is a different, private banking function, and we want to get the bank into the private sector as rapidly as possible.

John Grogan: May I tempt my right hon. Friend to see some possible advantages of applying freedom of information to Northern Rock in respect of increasing public confidence in the process? Is it not a fact that section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act specifically exempts commercially sensitive information from the need for disclosure? Does that not deal with the point that worries her?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will recognise that there is a public interest test at the heart of the Freedom of Information Actand it is right that there should be. It is important that an organisation that needs to function in the commercial markets has some certainty about what the status of different pieces of information will be.
	We see the bank as something that is staying in the public sector only on a temporary basis. This is not about a long-term public institution; if it were about such an institution with a long-term history in the public sector and if our intention were to keep it indefinitely in the public sector, that would be a completely different matter and my hon. Friend's point would be exactly right. However, this is about an institution that we want to get out of the public sector and into the private sector as rapidly as possible. We want to be able to sell it on; we do not want the taxpayer's interest to be undermined by the fact that the bank might have had to reveal commercially sensitive information or information that could weaken its position when it comes to getting the sale deal agreed.
	This is a temporary arrangement, therefore there is a temporary position with regard to the Freedom of Information Act. When the original discussions about the 2000 Act took place, and given all the deep principles rightly embedded in the Act by this Government, we provided for an exemption for the Bank of England precisely around the provision of private banking and related services. The legislation is in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act; it is not about changing the approach to it. There are the additional interests of taxpayers, so it is right that we do this now to get the operation working effectively and to get the bank back into the private sector.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I quite understand what she is saying, but it is extremely important that the public should understand one aspect of this issue. In the technical note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), it is mentioned that Northern Rock sold about half of its mortgage assets to Granite between 1999 and 2007. The note explains that Northern Rock will have an obligation to top up in the event that some of those assets are redeemed. Are the public not entitled to know whether some of the best assets of Northern Rock can be siphoned out of the company into Granite, thereby diminishing the value of the taxpayer's investment?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman cites the technical note, but has not read the subsequent sentence, which clearly states:
	There remain high quality assets on Northern Rock's balance sheet, as well as Granite's.
	It also states:
	It is a commercial decision for Northern Rock whether to provide new mortgage assets to the Granite financing vehicle or whether to allow the vehicle to run-off in an orderly way.

Rob Marris: Lords amendment No. 2 is basically the same as new clause 2, which was put forward but not reached when the Commons last debated this legislation. Amendment No. 14 was also put forward by the Opposition at that time, and that was discussed. That amendment mentioned provisions to ensure the independent day-to-day management of the business.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that it appears that, first, some right hon. and hon. Members do not realise that the Freedom of Information Act does not cover the private sector and that, secondly, to put forward an amendment asking for independent day-to-day business and then say that freedom of information should cover the bank is a contradictory and silly position?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is also, as I understand it, a curious consequence of the way in which the amendment has been drafted. Under the amendment, even after Northern Rock was sent back into the private sector and sold, it would still be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is clearly bonkers and shows that it is simply a wrecking amendment designed to prevent it being viable to operate Northern Rock effectively in the public sector in order to be able then to sell it on to the private sector to get the best possible return for the taxpayer.
	In the end, this is all about us getting the best return for the taxpayer and getting a proper arrangement that supports the stability of the financial services and banking system. We think that those are important objectives. Opposition Members are simply playing opportunistic games. They are making nonsense claims about Northern Rock, about how the securitisation system works, and about how the legal system works. It is right that we should have a proper debate about this, but it is also right that we should come up with a proper solution to the problems of Northern Rock, which Opposition Members have continually and singularly failed to do.

Philip Hammond: We have listened to 30 minutes of rubbish and waffle from the Minister, and we now have precisely 29 minutes left to scrutinise the House of Lords amendments and to consider the very significant points that were raised in the other place. There is clearly no prospect of this measure receiving proper scrutiny in this House. Indeed, the one part of the Bill that has been properly scrutinised is the bit that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked at in the House of Lords. The Government have tabled five amendments of their own in recognition of the weakness of the original draftingtestimony to the value of proper scrutiny.
	There was no reason at all to impose the farcical timetable that we have had for this Bill. We could have sat through the night tonight; we could have sat tomorrow. The only possible reason was to prevent proper debate and to obscure the extraordinary powers that the Government are taking, not only for Northern Rock but on a wider basis. We are witnessing a shocking abuse of this House's willingness to expedite legislation in an emergency, with many of the powers in the Bill simply not necessary to resolve the situation of Northern Rock.
	The amendments that have come back to us from the Lords fall into three groups: those dealing with transparency, the one dealing with fairness, and those dealing with procedure. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deal, respectively, with audit and freedom of information. There is a clear need for an audit of the situation in Northern Rock, including an analysis of the quality of the loan book, which would not necessarily be undertaken in depth in the course of the ordinary statutory audit that the Minister talked about. The public are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. No one is sure what we are getting, how much we are paying, or what we are buying it for.
	An additional complication has come to lightthat of Graniteand I want to take a minute to touch on that. We are all agreed that some of the best of Northern Rock's assets are included in Granite, but Granite also includes a Northern Rock seller's share worth about 5 billion to Northern Rock, which would be an early casualty of a default on the covenants in the Granite documentation, quickly undermining the solvency of Northern Rock. One of the requirements of an auditor would be to look at any impairment to the value of that seller's share as a result of the change in Northern Rock's situation. Specifically, Northern Rock must feed Granite with new mortgages; if it fails to do so, the Granite entities will collapse and go into wind-up with all the cash flows diverted to the bondholders, putting the seller's share, which belongs to Northern Rock, at risk. To try to avoid that, Northern Rock may be forced, if it is not originating new business, to take the good-quality assets that it has within its own portfolio and feed them into Granite. That is the way in which Granite can become a sponge sucking the high-quality assets out of Northern Rock. That is why an audit is so important, and that is why we have consistently argued for an alternative method of dealing with Northern Rock that puts the taxpayer at the top of the pecking order, not at the bottom, which the Chief Secretary's solution would do.
	Lords amendment No. 2 would be unremarkable anywhere but in the wonderland that this Government inhabit. It says that what is a publicly owned company shall be deemed to be a publicly owned company for the purposes of freedom of information. But we know from the draft order that the Government intend to ordain by statute that this particular publicly owned company is not a publicly owned company. We have heard a new definition from the Chief Secretary this evening; she says that it is not a public purpose company. The order talks about a publicly owned company. At this rate, next week we can anticipate a piece of legislation allowing the Government to designate by order that black is white.
	If Granite's loan book is as good as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister claim, and if, as the Prime Minister said at his press conference on Monday, they have
	made at all times the right decisions,
	what do they have to fear from an audit? What do they have to fear from a freedom of information request?

Frank Dobson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the freedom of information request would not be made of Ministers, but of people who, in a competitive market, are trying to run Northern Rock to the advantage of the taxpayer? It might well be to the disadvantage of the taxpayer for information to be disclosed. I suggest that the Tories could come up with a compromise in this case. If this House and the House of Lords insist on freedom of information applying to Northern Rock for the sake of protecting taxpayers, will they agree to apply freedom of information to all the institutions with which Northern Rock would have to compete?

Philip Hammond: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are other companies in the public sector that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The concern that he has will not arise because there is an exclusion from freedom of information provisions for commercially sensitive information. Let us be clear: what the Government are seeking to protect is not the commercial secrets of Northern Rock, but the cock-up that they have made of this whole fiasco since last September, which would be in danger of coming out if we got access to Northern Rock's information through the Freedom of Information Act.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Hammond: I am going to make some progress because I do not want to do what the Chief Secretary did and take up all the remaining time.
	Lords amendment No. 3 would include in the Bill a statutory role for the Office of Fair Trading, which would address a key concern in the City of London and the financial services industry about fairness and competition. The state aid rules are a constraint, but the Government have acknowledged that they are not in themselves a significant constraint. We have had a significant concession from the Government on that issue in the House of Lords, and I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for that. The Government made it clear during the debate in the House of Lords that Northern Rock will not be allowed to abuse its privileged position to act anti-competitively in the marketplace. That is a great victory for us, and for common sense. We would have preferred to see that clarification in the Bill, because when the chips are down and Granite needs topping up, there will be a great temptation to interpret this self-made and self-policed regime flexibly, but it is, none the less, something that we are pleased to acknowledge, and I thank the Chief Secretary for that.
	Finally, the Government amendments to clause 13 represent a partial response to the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords, but they do not go nearly far enough. The negative resolution procedure is simply not satisfactory for the approval of orders made under this Bill. Where the purpose of the order is to transfer assets, it is no good us coming back to the order and negating it 30 or 40 days after it has come into effect and the damage has been done. The effect of using the negative procedure would be, in practice, to remove all effective parliamentary scrutiny from the process. It would allow the Government to make a transfer of assets by order that Parliament can do nothing about.
	There is absolutely no need for the measure. The Government argued in the House of Lords that they may, in an emergency, need to transfer an asset urgently, but they do not need to act immediately in the case of Northern Rock. The shares are suspended and depositors still have access to their accounts. Life goes on. Mortgage holders are paying off their monthly payments and there is no risk to the system. We on the Conservative Benches maintain that this emergency legislation must relate precisely to the emergency situationif we can call it thatof Northern Rock, not a wider, general purpose that the Government are seeking.
	To fail fully to accept the DPRRC recommendations is, I understand, unprecedented without cross-party support. The DPRRC is not some partisan sniping party; it is a highly respected procedural Committee of the House of Lords. The Government's behaviour on the matter shows up as cynical, hollow rhetoric the Prime Minister's words back in June about respect for Parliament and the returning of powers to it.
	The Government's rejection of proper scrutiny not only of the Bill, through their timetabling motion, but of Northern Rock, the company that we are buying, through their refusal to accept the amendments, and their steamrollering of order-making powers in the face of the recommendations of a respected independent Committee of the House of Lords speak volumes about this rotten, incompetent and arrogant Government. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Government motions in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and to support the Lords in their decision.

Stuart Bell: We have had one blessing in disguise, which is that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not pray in aid the copy of the  Financial Times that is on the Dispatch Box before him. I was waiting for him to tell us that he would quote from the  Financial Times; indeed, one Opposition MemberI think it may even have been one on the Front Benchquoted many  Financial Times articles. It is a great pity that the Opposition spend so much time reading the  Financial Times, but learning so little from it. I am reminded of a saying that Winston Churchill used during the second world war. He quoted Dean Inge, who said, I've had a great many worries; most of them never happened. The hon. Gentleman's doomsday scenario bears no relationship to reality.
	I followed the Third Reading debate on the Bill, when the House was seriously misled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), whose comments on Granite come from another world. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is very particular about the words that we should not use and misleading is one of them, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw that remark.

Stuart Bell: I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to withdraw. I am not entirely sure what I said [ Laughter. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is helpful to the House if hon. Members can remember what they have just said. There was some suggestion of misleading the House and I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may quote Winston Churchill again, he said, The best speeches come from the heart. But if I have unintentionally misled the House, I am happy to

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obviously taking me some time to explain this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw the word misleading.

Stuart Bell: I am very sorry if I used the word misleading in relation to the speech by the hon. Member for Twickenham and of course I withdraw the remark.
	I have followed the Opposition most of the evening. They have consistently refused to look any of the arguments in the face when responding to the Chief Secretary. What they are showing is a total misunderstanding of any kind of use of special purpose vehicles in the City of London and any concept of global securitisation. They read the  Financial Times, and I can tell them that the City of London will be very disconcerted by their lack of knowledge about what actually happens in the City.

Philip Dunne: It is revealing to learn that the hon. Gentleman is an expert not only on matters of faith but on global securitisation. As he has criticised the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for raising the subject of Granite, perhaps he will expand on the final sentence of the technical note from the Treasury which states:
	Northern Rock is not liable for the Granite bonds and bondholders have no access to Northern Rock's assets.
	If that is the case, why is it that Northern Rock not only controls all the cash flowing into Granite, but has an obligation to top up assets and the seller's share that it holds in Granite?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Stuart Bell: I am very happy to answer, because the hon. Gentleman has shown his total ignorance of economics as they apply to securitisation.  [Interruption.] Yes, he has. That is the nature of a securitisation, and that is the nature of a bond. The hon. Gentleman's failure to understand that demonstrates the Opposition's failure to understand anything about the taking of Northern Rock into public ownership, the reasons why it is happening, and the reasons why it is temporary. The hon. Gentleman must understandalthough he seems not to wish to understandthat Granite is an independent legal entity. That is a fact from Northern Rock. Granite is owned by its shareholders; Northern Rock owns no shares in Granite. This is a normal procedure.

Angela Browning: I too was present for the Third Reading debate. Can the hon. Gentleman explain this? The technical note states, under the heading Control of Granite:
	The contractual structure of Granite is such that it is effectively controlled by Northern Rock as it continues to service the mortgages in Granite and to provide cash management and other administrative services.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Stuart Bell: That is the principle of securitisation. Securitisation has been here for 20 years. If the House wants a lesson on the concept, let me explain that it began with General Motors. Opposition Members have no understanding of what securitisation means, but everything that the hon. Lady has said is right: that is what securitisation is about. The Opposition's inability to understand securitisation reveals that they do not understand the City of London, do not understand the financial markets, and do not understand why we are in this position.

Philip Hammond: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Granite entities are consolidated in Northern Rock's accounts?

Stuart Bell: I understand that at least 40 per cent. of Northern Rock's mortgages are going across to Granite. Again, we are talking about a concept: the concept of balance sheets and accountability. I must tell Opposition Members that each time they open their mouths they show that they do not understand the City of London, they do not understand accountancy [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important matter. The House must listen.  [Interruption.] Order. The House must listen to the hon. Member who is addressing it.

John Redwood: rose

Rob Marris: rose

Stuart Bell: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).

Rob Marris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will move away from the Granite topic shortly because of the time constraint. I wonder whether he will let us know his opinion of the freedom of information aspect of all this.  [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Stuart Bell: I am not an expert on witches' brew. If I were an expert on witches' brew, I would be an expert on the Freedom of Information Act.
	The point isand the Financial Secretary has already made itthat Northern Rock will not be a public body. Freedom of information legislation requires that sensitive information be defended. The Bank of England has an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act in regard to the provision of private banking and related services. There is no reason why Northern Rock should fall within the purview of the Freedom of Information Act.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some securitisation schemes get the obligation off the balance sheet of the company engineering it and into other hands. His problem is that, in this case, that is not what Northern Rock happens to have done. Will he answer the question about the contractual relationship between Northern Rock and Granite which requires the supply of good-quality mortgages where others are paid off, or else become bad-quality mortgages?

Stuart Bell: Again, the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what the Chief Secretary said. Of course there is a top-up principle in the securitisation, because the securitisation is backed by a bond, the bond is bought by the investor, and the bond has an interesta coupon; of course, it has to be topped up. What the Chief Secretary clearly said is that there are other prime assets within Northern Rock that are not required to be used as that top-up.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his comments, because I shall now move on from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the question of competition. The Conservatives are not helped by the fact that they have an anti-European attitude and yet they have to fall back on the EU to defend the competition policies that will be enacted in respect of Northern Rock. The point has been made many times

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this debate not provide a good illustration of the fact that the entire Bill has been constructed in order to avoid hybrid instruments and the Hybrid Instruments Committee procedure, under which all these matters could be discussed in the proper manner? Is this not the true problem, and it will come out in the hybrid instruments

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Stuart Bell: A robust statutory framework is in place at European level to prevent the unfair distortion of competition through Government subsidies, and the Government support of Northern Rock will need to be fully consistent with those guidelines. That should be sufficient assurance for anyone in the City of London to understand that Northern Rock will not have a competitive advantage over other organisations in the banking sector.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a long time and he has argued endlessly that there should be freedom of information and that we should be open. Does he not feel even the slightest bit ashamed of his Government, as they have driven through this Bill when it is clearly not an emergency? With all his Back-Bench experience and given all the Governments he has seen, does he not feel even a little bit ashamed? Can I tempt him to give his personal opinion of the procedures that his Government have embarked on? Are they not disgraceful?

Stuart Bell: The right hon. Gentleman puts temptation in the way of an hon. Member. It is not for me to yield to the forbidden fruit of Parliament and to be contrary to my Whips Office and my business managers. I would like to say a few additional words, however.

Alan Beith: Does not what the hon. Gentleman is doing run the risk of ensuring that a party that supports this Bill and that moved the amendment will not contribute to the debate?

Stuart Bell: I have noticed over the years that interventions can take up an enormous amount of time and that many Members make their comments through interventions. As I have been interrupted and I shall continue to be so, I hope that I may make the points that I wish to make before the debate comes to an end.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps I should draw the House's attention to my diminishing interest in Northern Rock as a former shareholder. Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question? He is much better versed in the procedures of this House than many Members. Why on this occasion does he choose to rule out the use of a hybrid instrument, which I think would be particularly appropriate to apply?

Stuart Bell: It is not for me to rule that in or out; that is a question for those on our Front Bench. I have, however, been quietly asked to allow the Liberal spokesman to make an intervention, and I will be happy to do so. Let me simply say that if the Lords spend so much timetwo dayson producing amendments such as those we are discussing in this House now, then our having more time would have made very little difference.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he has been asked to allow the Liberal Democrats to intervene in this debate, which is very good of the Government. Bearing in mind that it was the Deputy Leader of the House who did that, can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, enable us to have extra time so these matters can be discussed properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the answer is no. I am bound by the rules of the House, and interventions such as this simply take up more time.

Jeremy Browne: What a build up to what will be a great six-minute speech!
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury accused the Liberal Democrats of playing opportunistic games with this Bill. That was a mistake, because if anything we have given the Government guidance throughout on the course of action that they should take. If only they had listened to us a bit earlier, the public purse would be in a lot better condition. As for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), he will have to learn to stand on his own two feet without the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

John Redwood: What is the Liberal Democrats' forecast of the first year total cost to the taxpayer of the nationalisation that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) envisages?

Jeremy Browne: Let me see whether I can get to that once I have concluded the two substantive points that I wish to discuss, the first of which is on the independent audit and the second of which is on freedom of information.
	The Liberal Democrat position is that an independent audit is appropriate, and it is strengthened by the arguments that we have heard about Granite in this House and in the other place. There has been an extremely worrying development, because there still is no feasible alternative to nationalisation, but that does not mean that the Government can sweep the Granite issue under the carpet. Some 8 billion of unsecured loans are on Northern Rock's balance sheet, but none is on Granite's, so there is an imbalance that is potentially highly damaging to the taxpayer. We need a new valuation that gives taxpayers confidence that when we undertake to buy this company, we are buying a proposition that offers us a reasonable deal.
	Commercial confidentiality is specifically excluded from the freedom of information provisions. The suspicion must be that the Government think that there is something to hide and that they would rather not be exposed by freedom of information. Northern Rock would have benefited from more rather than less scrutiny over the past few years. Some companies in the public sector that have commercial rivals are subject to freedom of information provisions. Royal Mail is a case in pointit competes with independent, private courier companiesand National Savings and Investments is another example of the phenomenon.
	Northern Rock is looking to engage very expensive consultants and it might well pay bonuses to staff, so it seems only reasonable that we are in a position to know the scale of the undertaking being made by its management. The Minister says that the problem is that as this is only a transitory condition and the company will be sold back to the private sectorshe was not specific on the precise time scaleit would not be appropriate to subject these measures to freedom of information. Of course there is nothing to prevent the Government from reintroducing provisions to exclude Northern Rock from freedom of information measures when it is sold back into the private sector. We have no assurance of when that will be, and it is surely much better to act on the precautionary principle and for the Government to support the relevant amendment.
	In conclusion, the Government are taking an extremely high-handed approach on this matter. The Liberal Democrats have sought to be a wise counsel and good friend to the Government throughout their difficulties over the past five months. That is entirely the spirit in which, in the other place, we supported the amendments before us this evening. We are not seeking to play opportunistic games. We seek to make the legislation, which is being introduced in short order, better than it would otherwise be. Rather than setting their face against good advice from my party and the Conservative party, the Government would do well to be less stubborn and to heed the warnings that we have given them in the past and are putting before the House this evening.

Iain Duncan Smith: Very little time is left, so I just want to make one particular point. We ought to put the amendments in context. They probe the reality of what the Government are doing. This is not aimed simply at safeguarding commercial interests or the interests of the taxpayer. The main priority of all this secrecy and all this rush is to safeguard the political interests of this Government. They know very well that if freedom of information was allowed, we would find out exactly what had gone on over the past few months. We would know how incompetent and disgraceful their behaviour has been. We would learn something else over the next few months. The Government have set this so that it will go

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [19 February].
	 The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on the Lords amendments to a conclusion .
	After Clause 10
	 Lords amendment: No. 2, insert the following new clause
	Freedom of information
	Where an authorised deposit-taker is subject to an order made under section 3 or where the property, rights and liabilities of an authorised UK deposit-taker have been transferred to a body corporate under section 6, that deposit-taker or body corporate shall be deemed
	(a) to be a publicly owned company for the purposes of section 3(1)(b);
	(b) to hold information on behalf of the Treasury for the purposes of section 3(2)(b); of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36).
	 Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. [Mr. Roy.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to .
	 Lords amendment No. 3 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 8 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: That Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. Jeremy Browne, Yvette Cooper, Mr. Philip Hammond and David Wright be members of the Committee; Yvette Cooper to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Roy.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
	 Sitting suspended.
	 On resuming

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008

SCHOOLS REORGANISATION (HAVERING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to highlight a number of issues surrounding potential changes to primary school provision in Havering, with particular reference to my constituency, Hornchurch. The Minister is aware of the matters I wish to raise as we have been in direct correspondence. I understand that he met the head teacher of one of the schools concerned just before Christmas, and I am grateful to him for the time that he spent there and the answers that he gave to the various matters raised with him.
	The background to the debate is the proposals by the London borough of Havering to invest in modern primary school facilities in the borough and to address surplus school places in some of the schools. In my constituency, two schools have been particularly affected by the local authority's proposalsAyloff primary school and Dunningford primary school. I pay tribute to the head teacher, the teaching staff and the governing bodies of both schools. Each of them has achieved high standards for their pupils and they are a key part of the community in Elm Park.
	However, both schools have surplus places. Ayloff has a surplus of 25 per cent. and Dunningford has a surplus of 38.1 per cent. In line with Government and Audit Commission guidance, the local authority felt it necessary to address the issue. As I understand it, the reduction in both schools to, for example, single form entry was not viable, leading to the consideration of more significant changes in the arrangements necessary to deal with the surplus school places.
	The council initially proposed the merger of the schools and the creation of a new purpose-built school facility at the current Ayloff site. The council argued that in the difficult situation that it faced in dealing with significant school places, that route would provide a new purpose-built school facility, while maintaining equality of treatment between the staff and governing bodies of both Dunningford and Ayloff, with a new unified school being created. However, it became apparent that the proposed arrangements had not taken account of new provisions introduced under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Those regulations required proposals for all new primary schools being created, for whatever reason, to be subject to a competition process. It was an extension of arrangements that existed for new secondary schools. The new regulations require that all new primary schools be subject to a competition that invites other potential promoters of schools to express an interest in setting up and operating new schools. Under such arrangements, the local authority continues to have capital responsibility for providing the school's facilities and maintaining the school as part of the ongoing dedicated schools budget revenue funding model, as applied to all other schools.
	If expressions of interest are received, an ongoing competition process ensues. The competition is most likely to result in the provision of a foundation trust or voluntary-aided school if the local authority elects to have no part in the process. However, the authority can choose to be involved with a promoter's bid or itself submit a separate proposal for a new school. The local authority, having considered the situation, applied for an exemption in relation to this case, to retainas it saw itthe concept of equality of treatment between the two schools, but through a merger.
	However, that permission was refused by the Secretary of State. As a consequence, Havering council decided to adopt a revised proposal with the proposed closure of Dunningford, even though, as was noted in the briefing paper to the cabinet of Havering council on 14 November 2007,
	it would require a more unpopular decision to close one school and retain one school and thus place staff and governors of the closing school at a significant disadvantage to the school that would remain open.
	The Minister will be aware that I wrote to him about the situation and the impact of the operation of the regulations in the scenario of action to address surplus school places. In his reply to me, the Minister said:
	I can confirm that we considered very carefully the case made by Havering for consent to publish proposals for a new community primary school, but we were not satisfied that the proposed school would contribute to raising local school standards, increased diversity and greater parental choice.
	I understand and appreciate that that decision has been made and I am not seeking tonight to reopen specific consideration of that issue. I also recognise that it is a matter for each local authority to set out and determine its plans for school provision for the local community that it serves, and that Ministers should not intervene. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the practical operation of the competition regime under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and to address some more general issues highlighted by this case.
	In particular, how in circumstances of what were in essence school closures because of surplus school places could a local authority demonstrate greater parental choice, as referred to in the Minister's letter, to meet the requirements of exemption when two schools were being reduced to one, albeit new, school? My driving principle in reviewing the situation has been to consider how best to ensure fairness and equality of treatment between two good schools in this extremely difficult situation. In that context, the Minister will be interested to know that I have made representations to the local authority to hold a competition for the replacement school. However, I have to say that I have done so to preserve balance and equality in the current situation, in which the risk is increasingly that one school might be pitted against the other; it is not because of any real enthusiasm for what appears to be a rigid and bureaucratic measure that the competition regime appears to provide.
	In that context, it is worth mentioning certain points that Havering council has put back to me, as highlighted in particular in a letter from Andrew Ireland, the group director of children's services at the London borough of Havering. He said:
	If it is the case that the only way that diversity and parental choice may be enhanced is through a competition to provide a school then the council's proposal does not achieve this. However, competition itself does not deliver a greater diversity of providers if the successful bidder is the local authority. So far there has been only one secondary school provided through competition, in Haringey, and the Local Authority won the competition. That school is not yet built. There has been no primary school built through the competition route to date. There is no evidence at all in the primary sector to justify a claim either way.
	He adds:
	The competition route was open to it, but officers' view was that the delay to achieving a new school would be a full year, disagreeing with the DCSF theoretical calculation that the delay would be only 4 months. The alternative route, to close one school, removed the delay but at a cost to the staff and governors of the school being closed. There is real evidence that extended delay can contribute to diminished outcomes for children. The council's position has to be that the experience of children has to be put first with regret for the worsened position of some staff this entails.
	It should be noted that the council has sought to ameliorate the impact on the staff of Dunningford by declaring that there will be no compulsory redundancies.
	As I understand it, the council's point on the extended delay and its difference of view from that of DCSF officials is that, in order to minimise disruption to the education of pupils, change is best effected at the start of the academic year, and to ensure an appropriate operation of admissions policies in practical terms this requires a specific timetable and means that the delay caused would be about a year. That is a practical issue that has been pointed out to me, and I hope that the Minister might be able to reflect on it as regards the model that has been established.
	Other concerns that have been raised include the following: neither the council, the schools or the communities involved would know what the outcome of the process would be until completed; a range of promoters could come forward, or not; the future position of all governors and staff involved would be uncertain, and if a promoter or proposals other than for a community school were approved, it is likely that the staff would be subject to a procedure under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981; that an early start could not be made on new building design as a third party would not have to accept any work completed by the council, further delaying implementation; and that the process for the council providing capital to the new school promoter is at best unclear at this stage.
	Those practical and genuinely held concerns have been raised with me, the public in Havering, the schools concerned and the governing bodies. I hope that the Minister might be able to consider and respond to them and in so doing give some guidance on how they could be overcome in this specific example, or more generally for a council in a similar predicament to that in which Havering finds itself. The Minister may say that they are not well founded, in which case, in terms of the continuing process, the officers in the cabinet of Havering council can hear him give another viewpoint on the competition route, which, in practice, may not be as they see it.
	It is important that control is given to local communities rather than having it vested in central Government, who prescribe more heavily in terms of how a process should operate. Because this is new grounda process that has not yet been fully tested, certainly not in the primary school arenait may be right that questions should be raised by Havering so that other schools and local authorities can review the position and learn from the experiences that we are having to deal with.
	Parents, children, staff and governors at Ayloff and Dunningford have a difficult period ahead of them, whatever outcome is finally decided on, depending on whether a competition route is adopted. There are no easy solutions in this sad situation where two excellent schools with very strong management teams have to address the difficult question of managing surplus school places. I ask the Minister to reflect upon the case of Havering and to look again at the policy framework and perspective that arise in this case so that lessons can be learned. Even if the law cannot be changed, perhaps guidance or further advice can be provided to local authorities to explain more specifically the relevant issues and the practical considerations.
	I hope that we will find our way through and work out how we can best manage the situation in Havering. Through this debate, perhaps we can provide input and guidance and insight into how local authorities manage a situation where there are surplus school places and where no new school is being created. It is a question of consolidation, and how the regulations fit in; I still have questions about whether they are practical or appropriate to such concerns. I hope that the Minister will take that issue on board, and reflect on the points made to me, and through me, to him, in this debate.

Jim Knight: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) for raising these matters with me in conversations here, in earlier questions and in correspondence. I am also grateful to the parents and children who have written to the Department about the proposed school closures.
	Parents, pupils, staff and the wider community are always rightly concerned about the effects of any changes to local school provision. As today's debate shows, that is true of every community throughout the country, not just the rural ones that have been in the news in the past few weeks.
	Understandably, people have strong views and they want them to be heard, and it is important that local authorities listen to the people who will be most directly affected and to their representatives, such as hon. Members, in order to get these difficult decisions right. Before I respond to the issues raised concerning Havering, I want to set the context of the way in which local authorities act as strategic commissioners for school places.
	The local authority is now the commissioner rather than the direct provider of educational servicesa vision that we set out in October 2005 in the White Paper Higher Standards: Better Schools for All, and put into law with the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Authorities are responsible for managing the supply and demand for schools in their areas. They are well placed for that role; they are certainly better placed to make those decisions than I am, sitting in Whitehall. They can use their local knowledge and local consultation to ensure that schools serve the needs of their communities and provide good quality education in the most cost-effective way. To do that, they have to adapt to changing circumstances.
	As birth rates fall and rise in different areas, local authorities have to consider what schools they need and where they should be, which may mean that not all schools are of the right size or in the right place. Too many surplus places can represent a poor use of resources, so authorities with high levels of surplus places will consider reducing them as part of their planning strategy. But, of course, that does not mean rushing to close schools.
	Capacity can also be reduced by removing temporary accommodation, consolidating split site schools and by rationalising school space. I have said repeatedly in recent weeks that local authorities should think creatively about their future planning. They will need to assess whether accommodation can be adapted for alternative use, broadening the services that their schools offer in line with the likely future pattern of children's services as a whole and with the needs of local communities. They can look at forming federations or consider collocating schools with other services to ensure that their buildings are viable. As I said, it is for the local authority to take the lead in that process, as the strategic commissioner of school places, while taking account of the particular local circumstances. Part of the new role for authorities is to provide greater choice and diversity for parents and children, as the hon. Gentleman said. The 2006 Act makes it clear that if a local authority wants to open any new school for pupils of compulsory school age, it must publish a notice inviting bids from other providersin effect, start a competition. We introduced the change to bring new talent and energy to school provision. Standards of teaching and learning will be improved if there is a diverse range of good schools for parents to choose from.
	The change is starting to work. We are already seeing energetic and dynamic providers coming forward in some of the competitions that have been run and in those that are running, including those for new primary schools. The hon. Gentleman is right that the council won the competition in Haringeythat just shows that competitions are not stacked against local authoritiesbut we have also held competitions for new secondary schools in Lincolnshire, as well as two competitions in Southampton, and there are six competitions for primary schools in Salford, two in Devon, one in Cambridge, one in West Sussex and one in Northamptonshire.
	I am sure that officers such as Andrew Ireland in Havering will be looking closely at the experience in those authorities, as will we, because the hon. Gentleman is right: in these early days of competition, we need to be able to look at the experience. I am particularly concerned to ensure that there should be enough providers out there wanting to enter such competitions, especially for primary schoolsthere is no question but that a number are interested in secondary schoolsto ensure that the competitions genuinely are competitions.
	That brings me to the reorganisation in Havering that the hon. Gentleman has raised in this debate. As he said, Havering's primary schools have 10 per cent. surplus places, with eight of its 65 primaries having more than 25 per cent. surplus places. It is sensible that the authority should address that surplus. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the local authority wishes to open two new community schools to replace Dunningford and Ayloff schools, and Edwin Lambert and the Manor schools, yet without holding competitions.
	We recognise that there may be cases where a competition will not necessarily be appropriate in a particular area. We have indicated that we might be prepared to give consent in three circumstances: first, straightforward amalgamations of infant and junior schools where a replacement primary school is proposed; secondly, where there is to be a reorganisation of religious schools in the area and schools with a particular religious character are to be replaced by schools with the same religious character; or thirdly, where an independent proposer proposes a new school to increase diversity in the area, rather than in response to a local authority's need to reorganise.
	We have provided that, with the consent of the Secretary of State, proposals to open a new school can be published by the local authorities or other providers without the need to run a competition, if the proposals meet those criteria. However, we have made it clear in debates, including during the passage of the 2006 Actmy first days as Minister for Schools were spent taking the Bill through Committeethat consent would be given only in exceptional cases, such as those that I have described.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that careful consideration was given to the case made by Havering for consent to publish proposals for two new community primary schools without competition, but we were simply not satisfied that there was a compelling argument to depart from our clear policy in those cases. We did not believe that the interests of the area would definitelythat is the test for usbe best served by the proposed new schools or that they would definitely contribute to raising local school standards and increase diversity and parental choice. We believe that competition would have tested all those questions. I am therefore pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has continued to promote the idea of competition with his local authority.
	Instead, the local authority has chosen to amalgamate existing schools without running school competitions. It is legally entitled not to hold a competition if it is proposing to close one school and make alterations to the other, rather than to establish a new school, but we would still have preferred to see the competitions. The local authority could have closed the two pairs of schools and held competitions for the two replacement schools, which would have provided an opportunity for other providers to set out alternative proposals. Havering could have obtained approval to enter its own community school proposals into those competitions, which could have been considered alongside those from any other providers. If Havering had been the best in the competition, as Haringey was, the schools adjudicator would have found for the council. The most important point is that had that been done, local people would have been able to submit their views on all the proposals. The local authority's proposals would have been considered on merit against any others, and the questions raised by the community about why Dunningford and the Manor school were selected for closureand the resulting sense of disadvantage among pupils and staffcould have been avoided, because there would have been a transparent competition process.
	I know that time was an issue. The local authority expressed concern that it had already carried out detailed consultation on its plans before the new requirement for school competitions came into force. However, I gently remind it that our proposals were well heralded. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 was introduced in February of that year, over a year and half before Havering applied to the Department. Following Royal Assent, detailed draft regulations and guidance were issued in November 2006 which made it clear that we expected competitions to be run for new schools. The local authority should therefore have recognised that the new measures would affect their plans, and should have taken them into account earlier.
	Local consultation is a critical element of any proposed reorganisation. Authorities must set out exactly what they propose to do, explain why, and explain how people will be affected. I know that Havering has consulted extensively on its reorganisation plans, and its current document includes changes that it made after listening to people's views. I note that the local authority has gone some way towards dealing with local concerns by making a commitment to secure equality for all staff when determining the new staffing structures, and to avoid redundancies. However, consultation is not the same as choice, and as I said, our preferenceand, I think, that of the hon. Gentlemanwould have been for a competition.
	I do not believe that that would have seriously delayed progress. Competitions could have been well under way by now, and decisions could have been made by the schools adjudicator in midsummer. The process would have involved a competition involving all interested parties, with a variable time scale. An initial notice would have been published inviting bids for the establishment of a new school, in a local newspaper and in a conspicuous place in the area served by the school, with a deadline of four months for proposals. A second notice would then have been published summarising the proposals submitted. It would have had to be published within three weeks of the end of the first notice period.
	There would have been a period for representations, allowing comments and objections to be submitted in relation to all proposals. During that period, a public meeting would have had to take place. There would then have been a decision by the local authority, or the schools adjudicator if the local authority had submitted proposals or had a role in the trust of a proposed trust school. Decisions are generally made within two months, and implementation would have followed. I think it is possible to complete the process in less than a year, and I believe that the schools adjudicator could have made a decision if Havering had chosen to enter the competition in midsummer. However, I accept that it is within the law for the local authority to amalgamate schools in this way, and it is for the authority to respond to concerns about its particular approach.

James Brokenshire: The Minister will know that various specific concerns were raised and appear still to be held by the local authority. May I ask him to reflect on what has been said in the debate, and to respond later to any points that he has not been able to address tonight? That would be helpful, and it would be appreciated.

Jim Knight: I was about to say exactly that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues raised in Andrew Ireland's letter, such as the way in which capital transfers and staff transfers would work. I should be happy to write to him, and I am sure that he would want to pass that information on to the authority.
	Let me end by stressing the Government's commitment to ensuring that schools receive the funding that they need to raise standards and deliver high-quality education. Over the next three years, we will provide 21.9 billion of capital support for investment in schools, compared with less than 700 million a year about 10 years ago. Over the next three years, Havering and its schools have been allocated 46 million of capital support. That includes 13.2 million of devolved formula capital for schools, 8.4 million of primary capital money and 8 million of targeted capital for 14 to 19 diplomas, special educational needs and disability needs. That allocation, averaging more than 15 million a year, compares with an allocation to Havering of less than 300,000 in 1996-97.
	I want to stress again that raising standards is at the heart of our agenda. That sometimes requires difficult decisions or imaginative solutions to changing patterns of need and, crucially, local authorities are responsible for these decisionsand, having listened to parents, they must take them.
	I will reflect on the issues raised in the debate, and I will continue to learn the lessons. I hope that authorities will learn the lessons from each other as well. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues tonight.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.